Climate Name Change

Funny but I wouldn't do anything that gives Michelle Bachmann more power and media attention.

 

Are there any studies finding a causal link between climate change and hurricanes? I support the promotion of alternative energy sources to combat global warming, but the whole 'climate change = hurricanes' seems a bit too far to me. But if there is supporting research, I'd like to read it.

 

Nolen, you are correct that weather is very complex, particularly for the formation of a hurricane. I don't know the hurricane formation literature, but I do know that most scientists' thinking goes something like the following:
1. We know that warmer oceans lead to stronger hurricanes. That's established, and warm surface water is crucial to hurricane formation.
2. Warmer global temperatures in all likelihood mean warmer oceans. Basic laws of thermodynamics at play. Oceans can conceivably store warm water away from the surface, but it doesn't typically work that way.
3. Taken together, 1&2 would strongly suggest that humans can expect stronger and/or more frequent hurricanes. The question of "to what degree" would be very wide open to all sorts of other variables.

For what it's worth, I like our current naming convention just fine. I love the naming of storms, but I also love keeping politics out of basic NOAA work.

 

I laughed at the triviality and vacuity of this video, but this video was neither Promethean nor innovative. Instead, it made the hierophants of anthropogenic global warming seem almost apoplectic towards these dissidents with their insipid, ad hominem dictum.

 

The problem with this logic is that hurricane activity is going down. Ironically enough, most of the damage occurred with hurricanes is the result of man. Its not so much the strong winds as it is the flooding due to poor drainage.

This is not to refute that climate warming exists, just that scientists are going about it the wrong way. (and by scientists, i mean Al Gore). While Texas is experiencing higher than average temperature and low rain fall, in the south east we are experiencing a few degrees lower temperature and a record rainfall.

While we can say that erratic weather patterns of all sorts is a sign of climate change, every year through out the world some region is always experiencing erratic changes in the weather, long before our great industrial boom 100 years ago.

 

LOL. Well, yeah, I guess that's not what I mean when I say scientists. And real scientists are going about things the right way: taking data and building models. Same way they investigate gravity, electricity, DNA and everything else.

And there is a ton of different ways (of course) to examine hurricane data. If either side cherry picks, it ignores a ton of data. Storm formation versus landfalls. North american landfalls versus central American landfalls. Average minimum storm pressure or wind speeds. And those who say the data gathering is inconsistent are probably right! How can observations possibly be comparable pre-satellite, pre-airplane recon, and when the coasts were less populated.

It's a difficult nut to crack for sure, in terms of the data. I was only talking about the general principle.

 

No mention of this yet?

No Atlantic Hurricane by August in First Time in 11 Years

 

B-Bob, that global cooling and heating occur is undoubtedly true, but both cooling and heating trends are cyclical. If mankind did not exist, the trends would still occur. Earth history indicates as much. Has human activity affected (aggravated) these cycles? Undoubtedly. The cycles include the trends of hurricane activity. According to meteorologist Joe Bastardi, the current trend reflects that of the 1950s.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

 

Which suggests that we don't know the full extent to how human activity contributes to climate change, this does not invalidate climate change as a whole.

 

I 100% agree. Which is why we shouldn't jump to conclusions and sign a bunch of nonsense legislation.

I really do not give 2 bits about climate change and the proof...or lack of. I think as a society as a whole needs to reduce its carbon footprint regardless. I have a problem with people who think its ok to waste energy on big inefficient vehicles, or those who waste electricity or those who simply refuse to recycle in spite.

 

Obviously they don't see it as a wasteful use of their money, or they wouldn't do it. If someone wants to sacrifice fuel efficiency for cargo/passenger space, safety, or even aesthetics, it's none of your business.

I refuse to recycle because in most cases it's cheaper to put trash in a landfill. It costs time/energy/money to recycle something. Much better to throw the material in a landfill and spend those saved resources on more productive enterprises (build a school instead of a recycling center ffs).

 

Actually, the correct response to commodore and that conservative rag's 1 year of data is this: one year of data is meaningless to analyze a trend. It's like trying to analyze a song using a millisecond of sound.

But separate from that, I agree with the sentiments in your post.

 

Honestly this is one of the most ill informed things I've read (and that is saying a lot for Clutchfans). Recycling things like glass, steel, and aluminum are far cheaper and more energy efficient than manufacturing those materials from scratch. Also landfills conveniently located near population centers are filling up and we are running out of space for those. Further they also cause potential problems with ground water and other issues. Dumping things into landfills also cost money with very little return while municipalities can generate income from recycling.

 

Global warming has been on pause for about 15 years. That's not exactly one year of data.

 

Yes, even Clutchfans D&D could agree that 15 is not equal to 1. But I was responding to that ridiculous OMG LOOK AT TEH SEA ICE THIS YEER GAIZ! article.

For anyone interested in the topic beyond talking points and "us versus them," here's an interesting recent article from Scientific American on the pause. (I know I'm probably thereby speaking to about 3 posters total, LOL.)

http://news.yahoo.com/pacific-ocean-responsible-pause-global-warming-190100281.html

The roles of oceans is incredibly complex, naturally. While the temperature rises have paused for roughly a decade or more, the 1st decade of the 21st century was still the hottest on record. Hardly cause for celebration, but with any luck the Earth can deal with our mess better than most models predict. Meanwhile, sea level rise has exceeded the predictions of most models. As always, I hope the scientific predictions are wrong, for our children and grandchildren's sake.

 

There are some materials worth recycling. Scrap metal for example.

The way you can tell if it's more efficient to recycle something rather than throw it away is whether or not a company will pay you for it.

No one will purchase paper or plastic from you, because it's cheaper to just make more rather than recycle (this might change if the recycling process improves or if the materials become more scarce).

Recycling is a manufacturing process, it consumes energy and time and money (not to mention creating pollution).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rExEVZlQia4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This mentality is why I have distanced myself from the Republican party. Its gone from personal rights, which I am all for, to straight out 'screw everyone else, Im going to do whatever I want to do' mentality.
You then have liberals, who I tend to agree with in principle, live in this fantasy land that laws, regulations, and big government will solve all the worlds problems.
Its the arrogant Republicans who drive the Liberals into passing ignorant legislation that burdens the responsible citizen.

I understand that driving 20 minutes out of your way to recycle 5lbs of aluminum cans is counter productive, and I agree, but its ignorant to refuse to use a recycling bin at your curb in which the city provides.

 

One problem with your reasoning is that the costs of pollution are often external—borne by society as a whole, or by people other than the ones doing the polluting. Emission of greenhouse gases by vehicles or as a byproduct of industrial production is a societal problem that can't be solved by self-interested individual decisions or private contracts.