Climate Change - Fact or Fiction

[pantheory]

On 9/1/2019 at 8:01 AM, Joshpantera said:

FYI, I'm not sold on the correlation between climate change and hurricanes. As far as I can tell they remain within natural and expected parameters as concerns size, strength, and frequency. 

 

But we are now approaching the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season and currently have this to deal with over the next several days: 

 

 

Yes, presently one cannot tell concerning the frequency of Hurricanes as it might relate to global warming.

 

As for me,  I'm not sold concerning the extent of global warming anyway, whether it will continue, or if mankind's possible contribution to it makes a negative difference. But for tropical cyclones, called hurricanes in north and central America, I wrote a scientific paper about it, still unfinished, concerning their mitigation and prevention. Upon its completion I expect to have several meteorologist co-authors and publish it in a related scientific journal.

 

Hurricanes and Typhoons: In the Atlantic the largest tropical cyclones are called Hurricanes and in the Pacific they are called Typhoons. Collectively they are all called tropical cyclones. Atlantic hurricanes begin their lives as tropical storms. Because storms are low pressure areas, the surrounding higher pressure areas can push such storms together in a tight grouping, usually over a week or so period of time, which can result in a much bigger single storm.

 

As to the science of it: there are air current waves that move across the Atlantic. They are long range and directional. Some are cooler and dryer, most are warmer, more humid, and move westerly across the Atlantic during Hurricane season. These are called tropical waves (waves of air). These are the energies of air currents from which hurricanes form. But hurricanes cannot form from these air currents alone; ocean surface temperatures must be from 79-82 F or above for ocean evaporation up-drafts to increase enough for cyclonic conditions to form. For Atlantic hurricanes most of these storms that end as hurricanes start off the coast of central Africa south of the Cape Verde Islands at about 15 degrees latitude. Nearly all of these storms that eventually become hurricanes move northwesterly across the Atlantic in a number of weeks, gaining strength as they travel.

 

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/tropical-wave-explainer-tropics-hurricanes

 

Global warming would add to the number of wave currents that would move across the Atlantic and Pacific per season. Increased ocean temperatures would also add to the number of these storms turning into hurricanes. The minimum hurricane wind velocities are 75 Mph by definition. So if global warming is real and temperatures increase for a long enough period of time where the Atlantic ocean  surface temperatures keep rising, then yes, the frequency of hurricanes will increase as well as the number of catastrophic ones.

 

If not before then, or by such a wake up call I might be in big "business," but not necessarily funny. The related scientific paper of mine and proposed project is presently called "Hurricane Mitigation": "The Design and development of the machinery, devices and methods needed to diminish, divert, or eliminate hurricanes" (and typhoons), a 2-3 billion dollar annual multiple method proposal and preventive maintenance project. The first few years would involve testing these alternative methods. There was $200 billion in U.S. hurricane damages in 2017 alone.  China has had the greatest damages and highest frequency of deaths from tropical cyclones. Bangladesh, with its lowlands,  counted its deaths at about 500,000 for just the year 1970. First a 2-3 billion dollar research and development program. Multi-purpose equipment would be built and the various mitigation methods tested. If the research and development showed promise it could be followed by a 2-3 per year multi-equipment, multi-method hurricane mitigation and prevention program, which would be a great investment for a group of countries, particularly those who would benefit the most and can afford it such as the U.S., China, and Japan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bangladesh_tropical_cyclones

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Moonobserver]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

https://qz.com/1726232/the-three-types-of-climate-change-denial/amp/

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 5:04 AM, Moonobserver said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

https://qz.com/1726232/the-three-types-of-climate-change-denial/amp/

 

That last article was interesting.

[Joshpantera]

On 9/1/2019 at 2:44 PM, pantheory said:

Multi-purpose equipment would be built and the various mitigation methods tested. If the research and development showed promise it could be followed by a 2-3 per year multi-equipment, multi-method hurricane mitigation and prevention program, which would be a great investment for a group of countries, particularly those who would benefit the most and can afford it such as the U.S., China, and Japan.

 

 

This reminds me of the Pirate Counsel binding ole' "Calypso" to human form, for smoother seas. 

 

 

The idea of scientifically suppressing tropical cyclones has been around for a while. If it could be done, yes, I'm sure a rather large pay day would be in store! 

[LogicalFallacy]

14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The idea of scientifically suppressing tropical cyclones has been around for a while. If it could be done, yes, I'm sure a rather large pay day would be in store! 

 

Reportedly Trumps solution is to Nuke the hurricanes... in fact apparently citizens write letters asking for military to nuke them  

 

Could be a problem with spreading radiation about? Put out the fire in the frying pan, but light fire to the whole house.

[Joshpantera]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Reportedly Trumps solution is to Nuke the hurricanes... in fact apparently citizens write letters asking for military to nuke them  

 

Could be a problem with spreading radiation about? Put out the fire in the frying pan, but light fire to the whole house.

 

Wankers! The whole lot! 

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This reminds me of the Pirate Counsel binding ole' "Calypso" to human form, for smoother seas. 

 

 

The idea of scientifically suppressing tropical cyclones has been around for a while. If it could be done, yes, I'm sure a rather large pay day would be in store! 

 

I have written a unpublished scientific paper concerning about a half dozen ways to mitigate, redirect, or break up a tropical cyclone, and how it might be done with much less havoc than the tropical cyclone causes by itself (called a hurricane in the U.S.)  I plan to publish the paper with meteorologist co-authors hopefully by the spring of 2021. The cost for such research and development I have estimated to be about 2 billion dollars, and a similar continuing annual mitigation program of labor and equipment thereafter of a similar 2 billion dollars. For 2017 alone in the US and Puerto Rico hurricane damage was  estimated to be $300 billion.

 

Yes, an atomic bomb might likely stop/ end a small hurricane but the side effects could be worse than the hurricane itself, and I think very few would support such a bizarre idea.

 

If global warming is real and continues, the frequency of hurricanes will increase. This is because a minimum ocean temperature of 79 degrees Fahrenheit is needed for a hurricane to form. Continuing Ocean temperatures above this threshold will likely produce more and larger hurricanes.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 10/18/2019 at 12:20 AM, pantheory said:

If global warming is real and continues, the frequency of hurricanes will increase. This is because a minimum ocean temperature of 79 degrees Fahrenheit is needed for a hurricane to form. Continuing Ocean temperatures above this threshold will likely produce more and larger hurricanes.

 

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

 

Quote

Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.

 

One obvious point about frequency is that I remember years where storms went all the way through. The storms are named, of course. And some years we had to add more names to the list because there we so many hurricanes at the time. I'll have to find the data. But I only remember that happening rarely. Maybe a few seasons. And in the past now. We're nowhere close to exhausting the names this year, and the season's close to over. We're currently at #14 Nestor out of #21 Wendy. And the seasons over the hump and headed towards closing. Basically, we'd have to see an increase in named storms, which, we're not observing. 

 

That should be good news! 

 

But I realize that it's not the greatest news if you're a scientist speculating on an increase in intensity with monetary interests involved. And it could ward off a big pay day in that sense if frequency is not observed.

 

But maybe not. Stopping hurricanes doesn't very well matter about frequency, it only matters for the one or two bad hits that cause so much economic damage. It would probably be better to steer clear of using frequency as a factor and just focus on the fact that curbing damage from the natural amount of hurricanes that we do get makes funding such a thing well worth while, regardless of the climate change debates. 

 

Secure that payday regardless of the outcome of the debates! 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

 

 

One obvious point about frequency is that I remember years where storms went all the way through. The storms are named, of course. And some years we had to add more names to the list because there we so many hurricanes at the time. I'll have to find the data. But I only remember that happening rarely. Maybe a few seasons. And in the past now. We're nowhere close to exhausting the names this year, and the season's close to over. We're currently at #14 Nestor out of #21 Wendy. And the seasons over the hump and headed towards closing. Basically, we'd have to see an increase in named storms, which, we're not observing. 

 

That should be good news! 

 

But I realize that it's not the greatest news if you're a scientist speculating on an increase in intensity with monetary interests involved. And it could ward off a big pay day in that sense if frequency is not observed.

 

But maybe not. Stopping hurricanes doesn't very well matter about frequency, it only matters for the one or two bad hits that cause so much economic damage. It would probably be better to steer clear of using frequency as a factor and just focus on the fact that curbing damage from the natural amount of hurricanes that we do get makes funding such a thing well worth while, regardless of the climate change debates. 

 

Secure that payday regardless of the outcome of the debates! 

 

 

your quote: "But I realize that it's not the greatest news if you're a scientist speculating on an increase in intensity with monetary interests involved. And it could ward off a big pay day in that sense if frequency is not observed."

 

Although I believe that if global warming continues for an extended period of time most climatologists would agree that the frequency of hurricanes will increase. It's just a matter of probability if ocean temperatures rise in the east Atlantic along the African coast about 15 degrees north of the equator. I don't believe speculation is involved. Of course as you may have realized I'm on the fence concerning global warming and lean as much toward NASA scientists who predict global cooling in the next couple decades or longer.

 

Although I am both a scientist and business man, my scientific research and related paper are unrelated to profit. For hurricane mitigation only state or private big business could possibly do this with a relatively large investment. Scientific research, conclusions and related speculations are a  non-profit enterprise. Following this, if believed justifiable, would be a large scale research programs involving large equipment design and related process development .

 

your quote: "But maybe not. Stopping hurricanes doesn't very well matter about frequency, it only matters for the one or two bad hits that cause so much economic damage. It would probably be better to steer clear of using frequency as a factor and just focus on the fact that curbing damage from the natural amount of hurricanes that we do get makes funding such a thing well worth while, regardless of the climate change debates."

 

As much as decreasing the intensity and breaking up of hurricanes, I am also looking toward their possible redirection . For the most part hurricanes travel north-westerly from their west African ocean origins. Before they become big hurricanes they possibly might be redirected slightly more northerly causing them to miss the US coast and travel up the north Atlantic losing power and breaking up in the colder north Atlantic waters.

 

Yes, as you suggest, curbing hurricane damage would also involve investing in stronger structural design,  better evacuation systems and hospital preparedness, etc.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Although I believe that if global warming continues for an extended period of time most climatologists would agree that the frequency of hurricanes will increase. It's just a matter of probability if ocean temperatures rise in the east Atlantic along the African coast about 15 degrees north of the equator. I don't believe speculation is involved. Of course as you may have realized I'm on the fence concerning global warming and lean as much toward NASA scientists who predict global cooling in the next couple decades or longer.

 

That's what I mean. If sea temps warm in ways which they have not shown thus far, then we would expect frequency to increase. But any curve balls like cooling or not warming as expected change everything. 

 

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

As much as decreasing the intensity and breaking up of hurricanes, I am also looking toward their possible redirection . For the most part hurricanes travel north-westerly from their west African ocean origins. Before they become big hurricanes they possibly might be redirected slightly more northerly causing them to miss the US coast and travel up the north Atlantic losing power and breaking up in the colder north Atlantic waters.

 

I just want to point out that you're addressing specifically the "Cape Verde Season," according to the logic above. August and September when the points of origin are roughly off the coast of Africa. The rest of the season prior and after consist mainly of points of origin in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Western Atlantic closer to the US mainland. So the plan is basically limited to the two month period from August to September before and after the peak of hurricane season when the Eastern Atlantic, off the coast of Africa, is the dominant point of origin. 

 

 

 

And as you can see, there's still a Caribbean point of origin through the Cape Verde Season. So I can see right away that deflection is limited in a lot of scenarios. 

 

Have the above concerns already been raised? And if so, what's the short answer to these concerns? 

[pantheory]

You are right; my concentration is on Cape Verde hurricane origins since they are the majority, and also because such hurricane origination also allows much more time for a response, involves deeper waters, and  travel much farther away from land for experimentation, mitigation, and allowances for mistakes.

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

You are right; my concentration is on Cape Verde hurricane origins since they are the majority, and also because such hurricane origination also allows for much more time for a response, involve deeper waters, and  become much farther away from land for experimentation, mitigation, and allowances for mistakes.

 

I'm just trying to simplify for the sake of moderation. Make clear to readers what we're talking about. Some of the potentially stronger hurricanes could possibly be redirected out at sea to become nothing more than what we call, "Fish Storms." Hurricanes which never make landfall and stay well offshore in the Atlantic. Instead of coming across through the Caribbean Sea and making landfall on the US mainland. 

 

As to powerful October or any other storms that originate in the Caribbean and move north, and then northwest or northeast, they can not be redirected anywhere without making landfall somewhere in the process. Hurricane Wilma would an example of a storm that would hit someone, somewhere regardless of redirection. Those non-Cape Verde storms would be subject to other methods like trying to manipulate a decrease in intensity more so than redirect the path. 

[Thurisaz]

Frankly, I see no reason to even start discussing this topic. It's settled, and science is right. The proposed mechanism of global warming has been known for more than a century, it's plausible, the actual observations jibe with it, and (my personal litmus test) time and again I see that foundational criticism of AGW (as opposed to discussing details, which is fair) is based on willful ignorance. And just like with (for example) babblical cretinism, when two sides are at each others' throats and side A knows where side B is coming from but not vice versa, it's a damn safe bet that side A is right. In the climate disaster case side A is the scientists.

 

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Unless I see some actually reasonable criticism of the topic as a whole.

[Moonobserver]

7 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

Frankly, I see no reason to even start discussing this topic. It's settled, and science is right. The proposed mechanism of global warming has been known for more than a century, it's plausible, the actual observations jibe with it, and (my personal litmus test) time and again I see that foundational criticism of AGW (as opposed to discussing details, which is fair) is based on willful ignorance. And just like with (for example) babblical cretinism, when two sides are at each others' throats and side A knows where side B is coming from but not vice versa, it's a damn safe bet that side A is right. In the climate disaster case side A is the scientists.

 

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Unless I see some actually reasonable criticism of the topic as a whole.

In addition, it's just common sense to conclude that a delicately balanced system----like the ecosystem----is going to be thrown out of balance by the countless tons of chemical pollutants being dumped into it every year.

[PurpleLilac]

On 8/22/2019 at 7:35 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

In response to @Jane I've created this topic in the appropriate forum, and hopefully the title is acceptable to her.

 

A few rules I think to set our frames of reference. This is about the science (Or lack thereof) of climate change, and specifically if the earth is warming, and if so what is causing it?

 

This is not debating the political solutions or total lack of them thereof. "I don't think electric cars will solve the issue therefore global warming is fake" is not an argument against whether or not its happening. We are not discussing the political minefield of whether or not politicians should concern themselves with what scientists are saying.

 

Personally, I largely accept the science of climate change, though I don't think it to be the greatest existential threat we face. I think the greatest threat is the quadfactor of pollution of our environment, increasing population, species extinction and global warming combined.

 

You will be expected to back up your statements with supporting references.

 

So that being said I'll let Jane make her opening statement on this subject and go from there.

I used to think it was all probably a big hoax for tin hat reasons. 
Now I really don’t know what to believe. I do know that the “the end of the world is coming” is very familiar and not in a good way. I’m so tired of hearing that dire warning my entire life. 
 

[florduh]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:21 AM, Thurisaz said:

Frankly, I see no reason to even start discussing this topic. It's settled, and science is right. The proposed mechanism of global warming has been known for more than a century, it's plausible, the actual observations jibe with it, and (my personal litmus test) time and again I see that foundational criticism of AGW (as opposed to discussing details, which is fair) is based on willful ignorance. And just like with (for example) babblical cretinism, when two sides are at each others' throats and side A knows where side B is coming from but not vice versa, it's a damn safe bet that side A is right. In the climate disaster case side A is the scientists.

 

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Unless I see some actually reasonable criticism of the topic as a whole.

 

I just thought this post bears repeating. When up against Creationists we have no trouble accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. When 97% of scientists agree on climate some tend to doubt their validity, probably due to an excellent propaganda machine for the fossil fuel industry. It's not unlike arguing flat earth conspiracy.

[★ Citsonga ★]

[LogicalFallacy]

5 hours ago, PurpleLilac said:

I used to think it was all probably a big hoax for tin hat reasons. 
Now I really don’t know what to believe. I do know that the “the end of the world is coming” is very familiar and not in a good way. I’m so tired of hearing that dire warning my entire life. 
 

 

Try not to confuse media hype with the actual science. They are often very different. The news media rarely, if ever, reports climate science correctly.

 

But on belief... what I'm interested in is why one accepts quite readily the germ theory of disease, or special relativity despite knowing little about them, but feels qualified enough to dispute the majority of climate scientists.

 

If you are rejecting it simply because some misinformed person is declaring that "climate change will end the world in 10 years" then that is a bad reason. If however you have solid reasons and evidence that the vast majority of climate science is outstandingly wrong, well one we want to know about it, and 2, that would be a valid reason.

 

 

5 hours ago, florduh said:

 

I just thought this post bears repeating. When up against Creationists we have no trouble accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. When 97% of scientists agree on climate some tend to doubt their validity, probably due to an excellent propaganda machine for the fossil fuel industry. It's not unlike arguing flat earth conspiracy.

 

But but… 200 scientists have written to the UN to state that climate change is not an emergency. See some scientists disagree.

 

(Meanwhile ignores that 11,000 scientists have written to the UN to urge them that climate change is an emergency.)

 

The problem with our concept of emergency is we are used to - watch out, lion is about to eat you... like now. Whereas people say... oh climate changing over 50-100 years, that's not an emergency. Except in geological times this is happening blindingly fast. Ecosystems are not having the chance to adapt. Worse the sea is absorbing a lot of the CO2. Yay right? Because less CO2 in the atmosphere means less warming? WRONG. The CO2 absorbed is causing ocean acidification. If it gets too bad too fast most marine life will die off. And that's kinda bad.

 

So sure where that little side tangent came from. I'm finished now.  

[florduh]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

But but… 200 scientists have written to the UN to state that climate change is not an emergency. See some scientists disagree.

The issue here is about whether climate change is real. There is hyperbole coming from both camps as to the seriousness and immediacy of the problem, though some still deny there even is a problem. That is the issue I'm addressing here. Will we all drown tomorrow? Probably not. Can we cut back on adding our own known contributing factors and at least not hasten the change? Definitely yes. The extreme positions are politically motivated and not stemming from the science.

[Thurisaz]

On 11/19/2019 at 11:40 PM, florduh said:

The issue here is about whether climate change is real. There is hyperbole coming from both camps as to the seriousness and immediacy of the problem, though some still deny there even is a problem. That is the issue I'm addressing here. Will we all drown tomorrow? Probably not. Can we cut back on adding our own known contributing factors and at least not hasten the change? Definitely yes. The extreme positions are politically motivated and not stemming from the science.

 

And that (emphasis mine) also bears repeating. Yes some are talking shit on both sides, but that's not proof that the entire topic is bullshit.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

 

And that (emphasis mine) also bears repeating. Yes some are talking shit on both sides, but that's not proof that the entire topic is bullshit.

 

Entirely agree with this (And therefore also Florduh)