Lar
Unregistered
|
|
This is definitely off-topic, but I was just wondering if any of the experts would agree that more 'global warming' would cause more tropical activity/storms, or is that nonsense? Thank you.
Edited by CFHC (Sat Jun 11 2005 11:03 AM)
|
wxman007
Meteorologist
Reged:
Posts: 617
Loc: Tuscaloosa, AL
|
|
Quote:
This is definitely off-topic, but I was just wondering if any of the experts would agree that more 'global warming' would cause more tropical activity/storms, or is that nonsense? Thank you.
Nonsense.
There is a lot of debate about it in the climate change circles, but Dr Chris Landsea, who probably knows more about hurricanes than anyone alive, says that it should not have an impact. You might want to read the Hurricane FAQ located on the website...it answers a lot of those type questions.
--------------------
Jason Kelley
|
KN4LF
Unregistered
|
|
Man induced harmful global warming is a fallacy. See my website link below.
Global Warming Refuted: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf42.htm
Take Care,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
Plant City, FL, USA
kn4lf@arrl.net
NWS Tampa Bay, FL SKYWARN Observer #HIL-249
Plant City, FL NWS CWOP Weather Station #AR692 Live Data: http://www.kn4lf.com/index1.html
Plant City, FL NWS CWOP Weather Station #AR692 3 Minute Data: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.html
Plant City, FL Daily Climatological Weather Data Archive Blog: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf22.htm
Florida Daily Weather Discussion Blog: http://www.kn4lf.com/flwx1.htm
Florida Raw Weather Forecasting Product Links: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf13.htm
Global Warming Refuted: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf42.htm
|
Keith234
Storm Chaser
Reged:
Posts: 921
Loc: 40.7N/73.3W Long Island
|
|
Can we move this to the other weather events forum...there is a tropical storm landfalling on Mobile Alabama with 70 mph winds.
--------------------
"I became insane with horrible periods of sanity"
Edgar Allan Poe
|
Londovir
Weather Guru
Reged:
Posts: 112
Loc: Lakeland, FL
|
|
Actually, one thought I had about that would be, perhaps not in frequency, but perhaps in intensity of existing storms.
One of the factors in hurricane intensification (one of, not the sole obviously) is SST. If "global warming", per se, is intended to be a term that refers to the median temperatures globally increasing measurably above historical median temperature levels, then it would be a rational consequence to conclude that the SST levels would eventually change as well. Granted due to the salinity, specific heat of water, sheer volume of water, and so on it would likely take years for the SST to measurably increase.
Still, if by some process SSTs were to increase by even a degree or so above what we would consider baseline "normal" - wouldn't that potentially allow any storms which form normally to have a higher "pool" of energy to work with? If, for example, something unlikely (but possible) such as the magnetic poles flipping due to vortices in the molten iron core of the earth happens, which weakens the magnetosphere to allow cosmic radiation to penetrate to the surface, then the SSTs would more than likely definitely increase, and that would give any storms a bigger feeding ground to work with.
Sorry, I just get my hackles up a bit when I read responses that deal in absolutes. The atmosphere and such is a highly dynamic system that we don't exactly have a perfect understanding of it, and even the concept of "global warming" is something unknown, as there's little ability to watch a biosphere undergo changes on a basis that's rapid enough for us to draw scientific conclusions from.
--------------------
Londovir
|
Terra
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 286
Loc: Kingwood, Texas
|
|
Thanks for your comments Londovir... I was very hesitant to take a stand that contradicted two very knowledgeable mets, but after reading your post, I have a little more courage to do so....
It is very true that the Earth is difficult to model, as we certainly know nothing about it on a grand scheme. I've said before, there are tons of feedback mechanisms that are in play and the overall effects are difficult to predict. I've only done gas-phase computer modeling in polar regions, and can tell you that scientists still don't even completey understand all of the particulars of ozone production in the remote troposphere. However, there's no question that there is a human role in this issue. CO2 and ozone concentrations have increased remarkably since industial times and humans have to take some of the blame for this. Population has increased dramatically, and the energy usage has increased at a more significant rate. Sure, there are historical natural cycles, in both temperature and CO2, but you have to consider all influences. It's all about feeback. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, it will become easier to understand the Earth...
Models (including those conducted by the ) have predicted more intense hurricanes, due to higher temperatures, which Londovir discussed. More CO2, higher temperature, more evaporation, more condensation, more latent heat, more fuel for stronger storms. JK (I think... I hope I'm right) commented on a negative feedback mechanism for SSTs. Sure, this is reasonable, but like I said, there are various mechanisms at play, and it's the overall effect that matters. This isn't exactly my area, so all I can do is comment on what NOAA research says.
And one quick comment about ozone depletion (as I read about it on one of the links previously posted)... CFCs (and other halogenated chemicals) were very stable (in fact, their stablity is why they were used) and thus could be transported into the stratosphere. There, they could be photolyzed by higher energy radiation and produce halogen atoms. Halogen atoms react with ozone, and thus deplete it. The chemistry is sound, hell, Crutzen, Rowland, and Molina won the Nobel Prize for this research. In fact (now back to the troposphere, phew), in the Arctic, localized ozone depletion events occur due to halogen atom chemistry. Background ozone concentrations can quickly go to zero! It's an interesting phenomeon, but again, it shows that the chemistry is real. Again, I'm not saying there's not a cyclical pattern of ozone change in the stratosphere. I'm just commenting that again, there is a human influence.
I am a republican, for the record, and I never thought as a kid that I'd be an environmentalist, but there are consequences to our actions. Just because there is debate on what those consequences will be in no way makes us innocent. And, as far as 'wasting tax dollars'... maybe it seems that way because answers are not discovered overnight. Scientists are trying to understand a terribly complex system, and that requires a lot of time and money to do so.
--------------------
Terra Dassau Cahill
|
Clark
Meteorologist
Reged:
Posts: 1710
Loc:
|
|
Terra (and everyone) -- debate's all about making the science better. Global warming is a topic that can polarize even the most brilliant of meteorologists & climatologists -- and it has! -- and one with a lot that remains to be discovered. Compared to many other science, the process of understanding its effects is really in its infancy; we don't have any reliable way of modeling it due to a lack of past data, while similar limitations arise in understanding what is currently going on.
SSTs do have a negative feedback loop, however; that much we have discovered. At around 31 C, something called the convective albedo thermostat kicks in, whereby unorganized convection starts to fire up over the waters. As a result, incoming solar radiation is limited and the convection uses up some of the available energy from the water, thereby reducing SSTs. If overall SSTs were to warm by 1 degree, it is theoretically possible that you could see more/stronger storms, but then you have to consider the impacts upon the entire global circulation. How will it impact the redistribution of heat across the globe? What about our oceanic currents? And the strength/location of midlatitude cyclones? Those are all, to a large degree, questions left unanswered by the computer modeling of warmer SST scenarios, which just consider the SST feedback loop into the storm. It is a series of questions, though, that we will have to answer in the near-future if we are to understand what may or may not happen.
Of course, what could happen if the Earth's system were to be completely changed as a result of global warming is anyone's guess. Physical processes we think we know and understand, not just in meteorology but in a wide array of sciences, may be completely different. It's a matter, however (and in my opinion), of trying to understand what is going on now, what we do know about bits and pieces of the science related to the problem, and how to piece it together with what little data we have to come up with an educated guess (ideally all without special interest groups and/or politicians -- on both sides! -- interfering with the process). We're halfway there.
--------------------
Current Tropical Model Output Plots
(or view them on the main page for any active Atlantic storms!)
|
B.C.Francis
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 331
Loc: Indiatlantic Florida
|
|
I was wondering if you were familiar with the works of Dr. James Lovelock and Dr. Lynn Margulis? His computer model " Daisy World " comes to my mind when I hear talk about global warming and weather...I think their work is very interesting and true...Weatherchef
|
Terra
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 286
Loc: Kingwood, Texas
|
|
We have to appreciate Dr. Lovelock for the invent of the electron capture detector (a super sensitive detector to measure trace atmsopheric gas concentrations after gas chromatography separations... we used one to detect peroxyacetyl nitrate, a NOx precursor in polar environments), but I personally think his global warming views are a little extreme, and at first glance seems to conflict his earlier research. I mean, he thinks nuclear power is "the" only answer to global warming and has an incredibe doomsday attitude, it's unreal. As far as Lovelock and Margulis' Gaia Hypothesis, the feedback loops, such as the carbon cycle and the importance of the bacteria and other biosphere members, are very valid. I don't think the Daisyworld model was meant to do anything other than show feedback, and prove to the scientific community that their idea was not teleological. I guess people could take it to mean that no matter what occurs, the planet will respond favorable towards human life, but I don't think there's enough evidence to show that people have no effect on the Earth. Sure, there's feedback, but who's to say it's all negative, and will return us to the status quo. Any change causes other changes, in a quest to establish a new equilibrium, which may be different from past equilibriums and could cause (over long time periods) huge changes on the Earth. I'm sure Earth will survive, as it always have... but, will we?
--------------------
Terra Dassau Cahill
|
B.C.Francis
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 331
Loc: Indiatlantic Florida
|
|
Being a avid reader ,I`ve only read about the Gaia Hypothesis and his writings on the DaisyWorld model. I`ve found them quite interesting. As for the topic of global warming, I have to agree with you that he is a big time NUCLEAR ENERGY avocate when it comes to cleaning up the atmosphere and his attitude does have a doomsday tinge to it.....If it where possible , would cold fusion be the answer ? and are we capable of ever achieving this goal and elimanate fossil fuel and atomic energy this century ?...Back to the subject, I`m a firm believer in taking care of our Earth Island , and that our species is with out a doubt making changes thats affecting the whole planet and will we be tolerated ?thats the big question. Like you said Terra, earth will survive...a little respect for our island might assure our survival also.....Time will tell.......Weatherchef
|
Terra
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 286
Loc: Kingwood, Texas
|
|
Boy, that was a taboo topic at Texas A&M when I began there in 1998..... I wonder what ever happened to John Bockris? I had no idea (before just looking) that so much research continued in this area.... I was always taught that it was a hoax, but you never know what the future will show...
--------------------
Terra Dassau Cahill
|
B.C.Francis
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 331
Loc: Indiatlantic Florida
|
|
Wow you where at Texas A.& M the same time Dr. Brockris was stirring up the scientific hornets nest with his work on cold fusion. From what I read about him, some circles thought of him as an alchemist. No wonder it was taboo for you back then to even think of it as a viable energy source. I think he was a man with a vision and didn`t care what the "static " thinkers thought. As to what ever happened to him , heres some infro... On the.Board of Trustees of Hydrogen Now out of Ft. Collins Colorado and on the Emeritus Board of Directors for the International Assciation for Hydogen Energy. They even have his address, phone# and e-mail address on their web site......I don`t know for sure , but because this topic isn`t that much weather related as the MODS would like it to be, maybe it should be moved to the Everything and Nothing forum for further disscusion ???....Weatherchef
|
B.C.Francis
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 331
Loc: Indiatlantic Florida
|
|
Yesterday I was reading about a weather event in USA Today that happened up in the high plains area I believe that in one town or county they recorded a wind speed of 107 mph at the peak of the event. There was no mention of tornadic activity, I was wondering if this was a classic example of a Derecho or downdrafting. (I wish I could find the article, but I threw the paper out , it was published on the 21st)...........Weatherchef
|
Clark
Meteorologist
Reged:
Posts: 1710
Loc:
|
|
Probably a strong downdraft or straight-line winds. Derechos are long-lived events spread out over a wide-area; the event may have been part of one, but the event itself was not a derecho.
--------------------
Current Tropical Model Output Plots
(or view them on the main page for any active Atlantic storms!)
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
