WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Drought relief?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 3:04 PM GMT on January 12, 2006

Computer forecast models are pointing to a change in the jet stream pattern over the coming week that could provide some drought relief to the southern half of the U.S., including eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The jet stream so far in January has been blowing in a somewhat "zonal" fashion--straight across the U.S., from about Oregon to New England. The jet has had only modest dips to the south (troughs), associated with rain storms that have tracked rapidly across the northern tier of states. Beginning Saturday, however, the jet stream is expected to take on a more bowed pattern, bringing a sharp trough of low pressure all the way down to Mexico. This trough will bring cold air and moisture with it, giving southern California needed rains, and the first snows of winter to Flagstaff, AZ. Amazingly, Flagstaff had over 83 inches of snow fall by this time last year, but so far this winter has had none!

By Monday, as the trough moves across the country, the drought-ravaged areas of eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have a chance of up to .5 inches of rain. This would be the first significant rains in nearly 100 days in some areas. Another major trough is expected to follow about a week later, and indications are that this trough will also swing far enough south to bring rain and snow to portions of the southern U.S. in need of moisture. However, since there is no cold Arctic air in Canada for these troughs to tap into, only short periods of winter-like conditions are expected in the U.S. over the next ten days. The country remains on track to record our warmest-ever January.


Figure 1. Number of days since the last .25 inch rain for each county in Oklahoma.

Jeff Masters
Smoke 2 Counties away
Smoke 2 Counties away
This cloud of smoke is from a wildfire in Irion county, as seen from Tom Green county, near San Angelo.
danger: low water
danger: low water
notice how far this marker is away from the water's current level

Drought

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

I can't imagine going 100 days without rain
The new ENSO report is out, and it's official - La Nina is coming.

O_O 2006 is going to be *insane*
""However, since there is no cold Arctic air in Canada for these troughs to tap into, only short periods of winter-like conditions are expected in the U.S. over the next ten days. The country remains on track to record our warmest-ever January."

My tunnels can fix this problem. Our warmest January ever can lead to a year long hurricane season as SSTs don't cool off as much during winter months. We could be in for a much worse hurricane season this year.If we leave the tunnels on during warm periods they will modify the weather somewhat and possibly prevent all these fires out in the midwest since rainfall would occur more often."

Sheesh dude. These tunnels aren't the miracle weather control of doom - we don't know what effect artificial cooling of water temps would have, and it certainly wouldn't be more rain T_T
FC.... afraid to ask, but insane how?
cyclonebuster, you make far too many assumptions. Too many to even name them all. But I'll tru

1) You claim that less tornadoes will form since there's less gulf moisture but that more rain will fall. That seems like quite an oxymoron to me. Not to mention to dont take into account the jet stream, strenght of the lower pressure system creating the front(s), the difference in temp behind and infont of the cold/warm front. All of those play a major role in when/where/how rain and tornadoes form, its not just the moisture content. If it was like that we would have tornadoes everyday in Florida from thunderstorms that pop-up every afternoon from the humidity and high temperatures.

2) You claim that the cold water would mix with the current of the gulf stream and cool it down. I think the cold water would just fall to the bottom again. It follows the principles, remember? Cold water is denser then warm water so it will just sink beneath it with little mixing.

3) You claim that it will have no adverse effect on sea life and that 70-75 degrees is the temp that ALL sea life enjoys. Well you're wrong since sea life lives in all the waters of the world and they're not all 70-75 degrees. Plus you forget to take into account lifestyles patterns of sea life. They migrate, mate, ect, ect due to changes in their environment. Screwing those up is at least one adverse effect.

4) You claim that this will have no effect on the gulf stream. How can you have any idea what will happen? There is so much going on in the gulf stream that there is no way you can account for every variable and say that this will have no effect.

5) You claim that there will be little cost of this endeavor and that all tax payer money could be paid back in 5 years. What about maintenance costs? What about sea life inhabiting your tunnels? Tons and tons of things to consider.

6) The biggest flaw of them all, that hurricanes can't form under 80 degree waters. I figured Vince, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta would show you that there are way more variables then just SST that contribute to hurricane formation.

I could find more assumptions, I'm sure, but I think I've made my point. There are way more variables then what you are taking into account. You make assumptions with nothing to back it up and state them as facts. Pretty much you are saying these tunnels are the end all to our weather problems. No more strong hurricanes, no more tornadoes, more rain where its needed, less rain where its not, colder winters when it warm and warmer when its cold. These tunnels arent directing weather here, theyre changing the environment that weather forms. If our best meteorologists cant accurately predict what the weather will do right now knowing all the variables (THAT WE KNOW OF, I BET THERE ARE MANY MORE!!), why do you think you can predict what it will do when youre not even taking into account everything that effects the weather??
One more thing, cyclonebuster, your main point of this is that if a strong hurricane goes over 70 degree water, even if only for 50 miles, that it will weaken significantly. If the hurricane is traveling at 5mph(pretty slow), thats 10 hours over the cool water; 10 mph, that's 5 hours; 15 mph, thats 3 1/3 hours, 20 mph and thats 2 1/2 hours.

What does that have to do with anything you ask? Well Hurricane Wilma this year went from a strong Cat 4 to a medium Cat 2 after over 24 hours on land. In other words, it took over a day for it to weaken to Cat 2 with NO SUPPORT FROM WARM OCEAN WATER.

So after considering that, do you still think that 70 degree water is going to weaken a hurricane that much if it spends less then a day over it? Because if these tunnels will only work if the hurricane is stationary or near stationary, then we dont need them. The hurricane will create its own upwelling and weaken itself.
"FC.... afraid to ask, but insane how?"

La Nina is associated with increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
9. F5
Well, I'm clearly unhappy about the latest ENSO advisory. Since we are already in D4 Exceptional drought, the onset of La Nina will only exacerbate the problem. The last real La Nina year was 1998 or 2000, can't remember for sure. Both of those years TX experienced drought, record or near record consecutive days without measurable rain, record or near record consecutive days temperature above 100 degrees, record or near record total number of days above 100 degrees, etc. I think you get the picture. Now, considering that we've already been in a drought for almost a year now, we cannot afford to be in a La Nina phase with the continued lack of rain/soil moisture. Water restrictions are already right around the corner, and in TX, at least where I live, if you don't keep moisture in the ground, you'll end up with major foundation problems and possibly a ruined house.

Despite the potential for rainfall this weekend and possibly next, we are over 20 inches below normal, and that is just at D/FW. I've had even less rain at my house than what was reported at the airport, probably at least 4 - 5 inches less if not more.

Add to that, we are already suffering from wildfires that if we don't get much in the way of spring rains, the entire summer/fall could be consumed by fires with an increasing potential for loss of life, home, etc.

Here's to hoping that the models are wrong and that we move back towards ENSO neutral and that the rains start coming our way soon.
I'm sorry, I should have phrased that better. A La Nina 2006 season is coming - La Nina is already here.
11. F5
I've read many of the posts lately regarding "Global warming". I have to say, I'm impressed with "chaser's" research into the subject. I myself have read a variety of articles and research papers on the subject and come to essentially the same conclusions. While it is true that human activity is increasing the quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we have no idea what effect, if any, that is having on the earth's climate. The earth's climate is a dynamic model, constantly adjusting to a a multitude of variable inputs, that maintains itself in a reasonable fashion. Fluctuations occur, and no one can explain why. Anyone who says they can with any certaint is a liar or is pushing an agenda. Sound disparaging? Too bad. It's not that they are definitely wrong. If I made that claim, I would be committing the same error as they are. It's just that no one can prove one way or the other that human actions are the primary or even a secondary driver of the current variable warming occuring in the earth's climate. It could be so far down the list compared to other natural phenomena that it's effect is negligable at best.

So what does that mean? It means we ought to be darn careful of what we are doing before we start trying to "tinker" with mother nature. What appears to be a well-intentioned proposal could have dramatic and drastic unforseen effects. In addition, implementing certain restrictions on industry/people to reduce emissions to the levels defined in Kyoto would have a drastic effect on the US economy, and leave people in far worse shape than the current slight warming of the earth. After all, we've seen the earth much hotter than it is today prior to humans putting anything into the atmosphere, so the reality is we have no idea what all is going on. To them implement changes that would cost our economy unforseen totals without definitive proof of the consequences of those changes would be insanity. After all, one potential outcome would be to impose major reductions in pollutants from inducstry along with much higher CAFE requirements for automobiles. After spending billions to upgrade, watching energy prices and costs of other goods skyrocket, unemployment increase, increased deaths from automobile accidents due to less safe lighter/smaller vehicles, we may find that the changes had no effect whatsoever on the climate. Worse, you may find that the CO2 we put into the atmosphere was the only thing keeping us from another mini ice-age, which then caused millions of people to die due to starvation, freezing, etc.

That said, I do agree that we should be researching alterntive energy sources, but mostly from a health/cost perspective. It's clear that with all the uncertainty in the world, oil may never be cheap again, and the effects of acid rain and other pollutants have been more clearly delineated. Those are the primary reasons we need to be doing the research. At the same time, I believe we should continue to do research into the climate in hopes of one day being better able to correctly model the effects of natural and human related variables and determine what, if any, measures are necessary to implement.
hey bills here in cali we do it all the time lol
Hey Forecastercolby~ can I get a link to the ENSO report?

La Nina for the 2006 season would be most bad, as you say. Far less rain falls in the Gulf and southeastern states. Drought is common in the desert Southwest. Hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic encounter no westerly wind resistance and therefore are twice as likely to strike the U.S. The 1998 La Nia hurricane season was the deadliest in the past two centuries.
boldman~lol~i had nearly posted that fire map like that instead of linking it below.
Here's the ENSO:

CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP
January 12, 2006

Synopsis: Developing La Nia conditions are expected to continue during the next 3-6 months.

Equatorial SST anomalies greater than +0.5C were restricted to the region between Indonesia and 165E during December, while negative anomalies less than 0.5C were observed at most locations between the date line and the South American coast (Fig. 1). By the end of the month the SST departures were negative in all of the Nio regions (Fig. 2). During the last several months surface and subsurface temperature anomalies have decreased in the region between 180W and the South American coast (Fig. 3). During the same period persistent stronger-than-average low-level equatorial easterly winds were observed over the central Pacific.Since early November there has been a persistent pattern of enhanced tropical convection near 130E (Indonesia) and suppressed convection near the date line (180W). Collectively, the present oceanic and atmospheric anomalies are consistent with the development of La Nia conditions in the tropical Pacific.

Over the past several months most of the statistical and coupled model forecasts have trended towards cooler conditions in the tropical Pacific through mid-2006. The spread of the most recent statistical and coupled model forecasts (weak La Nia to ENSO-neutral) indicates some uncertainty in the outlooks (Fig. 4). However, current conditions (stronger-than-average easterly winds over the central equatorial Pacific) and recent cooling trends in observed oceanic conditions support the continuation of La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific during the next 3-6 months.

Based on current conditions in the tropical Pacific, the most recent SST predictions,and on results from historical studies on the effects of cold episodes, we expect wetter-than-normal (drier-than-normal) conditions to prevail over Indonesia (central equatorial Pacific) during the remainder of the NH winter. That pattern of tropical precipitation favors a northward shift in the position of the jet stream over the eastern North Pacific during winter, which is usually accompanied by drier-than-normal conditions over southern California and Arizona. However, given the late onset of La Nia there is considerable uncertainty as to whether or not typical La Nia impacts will be experienced in the West during the remainder of NH winter.
F5,
Was hoping you got a bit of moisture from the last weather system that went through. We finally got some rain (about .5 in at my home) and even some light snow (no accumulation) here in NW Ark. Only a very small dent, but something. Perhaps things are beginning to change. The weather system that is moving through today/evening is drawing up more moisture than expected (just as the last one did), where for the last year it has almost always been less moisture than expected. So MAYBE a real change in the pattern, and since that moisture pretty much has to pass over you there in DFW to get to here, perhaps things will look wetter there soon. Far too early to say it's a real trend, but when your in extreme and higher drought, you look for any signs of things getting better.
1.) Not taliking about gulf moisture. I am talking about lower air temps. migrating to the north.

Gulf moisture or air temps, it still doesn't take into account all the other variables that I mentioned.

3.) So when is the last time we have seen arctic sea life in the tropics and vise versa? Changing it to 70/75 degrees is not going to create a great migration between the two regions.

Once again, an assumption. I dont know how many sea animals migrate from cold to warm water or vice versa and I really doubt you do. I know whales travel very far and I wouldnt be surprised if they move from tropical waters to very cold waters.

4.) The changes in the gulfstream is a drop in the bucket so to say. Our impact with global warming is a much greater problem and this idea reverses that.

To change the gulf stream is a drop in the bucket? Please be serious. The gulf stream is one of the most, if not the most important feature of the Atlantic. To change the gulf stream is to possibly cause an ice age, it's happened before. And our impact on global warming unknown! We could be doing nothing or everything. I dont know, you dont know, no one knows!! The only fact is that the globe is warming, which has happened millions of times before.

5.) That is good thing to have the sea life near the tunnels inhabiting them. If they don't like it they can just swim back out. Any sea life that gets trapped in them can be screen out like they do in modern day powerplants and harm does not occur to it.

So it will be a good thing when there's 1000's of crustaceans are clogging up the pipe? When you have tons and tons of barnicles stuck to the inside? And still what about maintenance?? You dont think these tunnels will need any??

6.)When was the last time a Cat2 formed in water below 80 degrees. I bet you can't find many? That is why I say it weakens them to a cat 1.

A Cat 2 forming in 70 degree waters and a Cat 5 going over 70 degree waters are two completely different things. Read what I said again. That should be all I need to prove that a hurricane, especially a large, powerful one, can survive water temps below 80 degrees, or no water at all, for at least a day, and still come out the other side as a 100 mph storm.

Hurricane Wilma this year went from a strong Cat 4 to a medium Cat 2 after over 24 hours on land. In other words, it took over a day for it to weaken to Cat 2 with NO SUPPORT FROM WARM OCEAN WATER.

And to add support for my next statement, much of hurricane Wilma was over water, the eye however was either completely or partially on land.

7.) You must remember the whole storm must cross the cool water not just the eye. It could take one or two days for that to happen.

WRONG!! Only the circulation center uses the warm water to fuel itself. Everything else is a result of the that circulation center. Its not a culmination of the waters under the whole hurricane, only the waters near the eye that give it strength.

These are the assumptions Im talking about. You make tons of them and half of them aren't correct and the other half very questionable. You also add little to no support to your arguments. Please, I would love to see a hurricane prevention system as much as the next person, but you really must consider everything before assuming it will work.
PLEASE READ EVERYONE! THANKS!!!

Hey cyclonebuster,

I have to reply to this point you made, because I want to make some things crystal clear, for I will NEVER understand how ANYONE can see the concept of Global warming as it has been defined by others and is thought of today.

I honestly don't think the tunnel idea is the answer, even though it is well intentioned. You state that you can't seem to get M.I.T. to model it for you. No offense intended, but if you ask any researcher who doesn't see any validity to a proposal, they will simply say a few kind and encouraging words, followed up with no serious interest. This seems to be the case here with your unique idea.

I know you honestly believe it will work, and that it's the answer to everything wrong in the world meteorologically speaking. However, nothing is the perfect answer! Simply put, I have been studying and working in the Atmospheric sciences/meteorological field for more than 10 years now, and it is one of the most humbling experiences.

We are working in a field of science where we are more likely to be wrong far more often than correct. That's why you see forecasts given in percentages...because NO ONE CAN guarantee it, until its already happening.

You are proposing an idea that has no scientific support, and can't even be considered a basic theory which by definition isn't a factual conclusion, much less a realistic proposition.

Think about all of the scientists that are working 50 hour weeks trying to determine a way to somehow mitigate severe weather and have been over a period of decades, and yet you think that the most basic concept of weakening a hurricane by cooler water being induced by these tunnels is going to work?

I realize you will respond with yet another ongoing list of assumptions that are generally unprovable, just like your infamous "human induced global warming" concept whenever someone suggests that your tunnel idea could be more harmful to the atmosphere than without.

Once again, I will reiterate what I have been saying and will continue to say, that there is ZERO PROOF that humans have in any way altered global temperatures.

Furthermore, it can NEVER be proved with any certainty because there is NO WAY to know what the temperatures would've been without the release of greenhouse gas emissions.

Anytime someone tries to prove such an unfounded concept, they have to point to a particular model run that may suggest it is a possibility. The problem is that all computer modeling is ONLY as good as the information that is put into it.

The main research modeling that the main stream media has consistently reported as evidence of global warming has been PROVEN to have been flawed and there were MAJOR unrealistic equations used to get the desired result.

Even with these outrageous worse case scenarios, made with impossible variables, it only suggested a SLIGHT increase by the year 2080.

Honestly, it frustrates me personally that the media and the propaganda machine has been so successful in framing the "global warming" issue as strictly being a human induced issue.

Lets use some basic logic here. What does the word,Global actually mean? Can we agree that it means worldwide? OK, what does warming mean? Can we agree that it suggests an increase in temperatures?

Now, what would Global warming mean? Can we agree that it must be defined as a worldwide warming trend? If so, what does that have to do with greenhouse gas emissions?

How can that realistically be added to such a basic definition? Yet, when we hear the term, "Global warming" people automatically think of human induced warming, rather than JUST basic Global warming.

My point is that the whole debate is being manipulated and is flawed from the outset by the very definition of what the discussion really should be.

This was ingenious by the proponents of this unfounded concept, because it has people conditioned to automatically attribute the NATURAL increases in climate change to human activities that already have a negative connotation such as man made pollution.

The fact (here's a word that is used way too loosely in the scientific community and especially in this type of debate)is no one can deny that the OVERALL average temperature of the globe has been increasing SLOWLY since record keeping first began less than 200 years ago.

Therefore, people can understand that there is Global warming. However, the problem is that people don't get to think logically for themselves and realize that Global warming SHOULD NOT be automatically thought of as the human induced warming which is the definition you see, hear, and is referred to by most everyone.

I believe it is SIMPLY the warming phase of NATURAL climate variability which has actually occurred before and will do so again without ANY greenhouse gas emissions.

The debate should not have ever been distorted like it has, where people automatically define Global increases in temperature with pollution. Instead, it should be, what is the most likely cause for this undeniable warming trend called Global warming?

Based upon all of the aforementioned and my blogs on this subject(please feel free to read), human activities effect on Global climate change is either very minimal or non existent especially when compared with the time tested and factual reality of Natural climate change that has occurred many times throughout history.

Did you notice how I PROPERLY defined the issue whether you agree with my perspective of the actual cause of Global warming or not. If there were alot less distortion of equations, so called facts, and people not changing definitions, it would be a great first step to having a sensible debate about such an issue.

THESE ARE MY OPINIONS...THEY ARE NOTHING MORE AND CERTAINLY NOTHING LESS.:)

In short, I get so annoyed that global warming is ALWAYS first thought of as... is it actually occurring? (which is obvious)which in turn manipulates the debate intentionally of course, rather than it being about... WHAT is responsible for these SLIGHT temperature increases?

How can the simple terminology of Global warming be defined as human induced? Who came up with that absurd notion?

The real definition has to be a worldwide increase in temperatures, no more and no less!

I hope you and everyone has a great night.:)

Thanks,
Tony


This whole global warming debate has gotten silly.

Myth #1 people who think humans are causing global warming have some hidden agenda.
At least as many people denying human cause for global warming have an agenda. Most studies denying it come from oil companies. Most environmental organizations are funded through donations, Oil companies care only about making money.

Myth #2 treaties limiting co2 production would hurt the economy.
The economy is at least as complicated as the weather. Nobody really knows if this is true.

I'm not saying that one or the other viewpoint is true, but there have been a few comments that have been bothersome.

24. F5
ArkWeather,

Glad to hear you got a bit of rain out of the last system. We didn't get anything except a few stratus clouds. Although some have talked about not having moisture from the gulf, that isn't really the case. Take today for example. When I walked outside this morning, I could feel the humidity in the air (and after so many days of such low humidity, you know when it's there). Our dewpoint was up in the mid 50's earlier today and near 60 just S of us. However, as the cold front's approach, the winds switch from the S to the SW and push all the moisture out before the cold front gets here. By the time it does, there's little or no moisture left for any rain. That's the thing that I find really unusual this year. We normally maintain the S/SE wind until the front moves through, thus, the moisture remains in place allowing for rain/t-storms. I don't know if it's because the L are tracking more northerly or if the llj from the Pacific is too far N that the dry SW winds are hitting us before the front.

Supposedly, we have a decent chance this coming Monday, but the GFS and ecmwf have been wrong before. In fact, they are already modifying the discussion from previous forecasts such that anything along and W of I35 may not see any rain again (which is where I am). Only the eastern counties may now see rain on Monday. Hoping they are wrong but unfortunately, they haven't been lately.
Hey Michalp,

I'm sorry but the oil companies aren't the ones doing the actual studies that suggest strongly that Global warming is not related to human activities...Its NOAA.

With all due respect you just created another MYTH.:)

I will get you the link.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Michalp,

The two myths you cited as being bothersome to you are both in support of human induced global warming...Please tell me how that is an objective viewpoint.

Please read my previous post on the real absurdity of this whole issue.

Thanks,
Tony



Hey Michalp,

You obviously don't work in the meteorological field to suggest the economy is at least as complicated as the weather.

you have a right to your opinions...but it is most ingenious to say the debate hasn't gotten silly as make both absurd and unfounded suggestions and then only state one side of the issue that concerns you.

Thanks,
Tony


28. F5
michalp,

Limiting CO2 production hurting the economy is not a myth. Any and all money spent reducing CO2 emissions is money that cannot be spent elsewhere. There is not an endless supply of money to do whatever. If you spend it on reducing CO2 emissions, then you can't spend it on investments in new plants, job expansion, research for new products, etc. May I suggest you read "Basic Econonmics" by Dr. Thomas Sowell. I never though economics was an interesting subject until I read that book.
>> You obviously don't work in the meteorological field to suggest the economy is at least as complicated as the weather.

Given that humans have complete control of the economy. People in charge have complete control of the drivers of the economy and we still haven't figured it out. I don't think it's an unfair thing to say.

>> The two myths you cited as being bothersome to you are both in support of human induced global warming...Please tell me how that is an objective viewpoint.

these two things have seamed to be an accepted theme. If you look at my other posts, I tend to be highly skeptical.
I'm currently in an AP Macroeconomics course. Treaties limiting CO2 production increase production costs, lower aggregate supply, raise the price level, raise unemployment, and lower investment.
Michalp,

The reason the economy is complicated id dictated not by its natural complexities but rather by the selfish intentions of those who intentionally and continuously act to manipulate it.

In contrast, we have never been successful in manipulating weather and this will most likely ALWAYS be the case. We are NEVER in control so I can't see a legitimate comparison with all due respect. The weather and atmosphere that affects it are inherently far MORE complex than the economy.

Thanks,
Tony


HEY EVERYONE,

Here is the latest study into whether there is a REALISTIC correlation between Global warming, whether it is Natural as I suggest or man induced which others propose, and the frequency and/or intensity of Hurricanes now and through the next century.

It highlights the errors of the studies suggesting the opposite to be true.:)

See, Michalp, not funded by the oil companies, imagine that.:)

Thanks,
Tony



Link
Hey everyone,

I am going to call it a night.:)

Hey Michalp,

I want to apologize for coming across a little too strongly which could be taken that way after rereading my posts.

Honestly, I am frustrated with the manipulation of science and the REAL definition of Global warming.

I hope you and everyone else has a great night.:)

Your friend,
Tony


i ahv updated my winter blog
Cyclonebuster,

That is the distorted study I was talking about...you seem to be the one who needs to wake or learn how to read which ever is the problem...oh yeah...i guess your tunnel idea will fix that problem as well.:)
Do you not realize that their are many different government agencies, many independent of the others. That study is NOT done by the REAL hurricane specialist. The one I posted...that you didn't like the contents of is the one done by the Hurricane research division.:)
Cyclonebuster...How do you KNOW that this latest warming phase began with the industrial revolution?

YOU DON'T!

If you believe study climatology...then you know that the earth goes through climate change cycles NATURALLY and there are many core samples and other studies, that suggest we are NOT even close to being in the warmest cycle now.

YOu can find ALL KINDS OF BELIEFS ON THE INTERNET...

Anything you want to find to believe in...its on here somewhere...I even know someone who thinks they can protect the entire U.S. from major hurricanes forever...can you believe that?


I know I don't.:)
Just because people believe something MAY be true doesn't make it so. Therefore, it doesn't matter if 5 million scientists say that Global warming is a result of human activities, it still wouldn't make it true.

Since you said, Global warming started with the industrial revolution...Has every year since the date the industrial revolution began, show a continued warming trend with NO alterations?

If it doesn't..then you can't blame it on greenhouse gas emissions. Its called NATURAL climate variability.:)

Honestly, I am tired of debating something not only unfounded but totally inconsequental compared to other larger concerns.

I hope you have a goodnight.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Cyclonebuster...at least read the conclusion...That's exactly what they discovered!

Please get out of your tunnel and simply read.:)

I will get you the link once again...read...then find faults if you can.:)

Cyclonebuster,

Here is a REAL FACT.

YOU CAN"T PROVE Global warming was or is caused by human activities.

You can BELIEVE its true but CAN NEVER PROVE IT!

Heres the link again...read conclusion at least...

I've had enough talk about the absurd ideas by people with such closed minded...tunnel vision...pun intended of course.:)

Link
hey whats up
Goodnight everyone.:)

Thanks,
Tony
do not go this yet you have mail
cyclonebuster,

You can't base climitology on a period less than 30 years by its own definition... We are in the AMO cycle that caused the increased water temperatures and will keep the
hurricanes coming in heightened frequency and intensity consistent with these multidecadal cycles. It will reverse itself in less than 30 years..until then..you will have that long to blame the Natural cycles on human activities..then what will you say about he decrease in activity?

Anyway, this issue has become too politisized to really have a genuine debate...its all based on unsubsatantiated and unproven assumptions and there CAN be no proof.

Even if human activities will affect Global temperatures..it will be very minimal and there is No way for anyone to know if it would've been any different without greenhouse gas emissions..that is an indisputable FACT...No assumptions needed...It's common sense.

I need to do more important things like turn on REAL human induced warming called my thermastat.

Thanks,
Tony


Seeding was tried a while back, with some little sucess.

La Nina really looking strong, with the Gulf Loop anomalies almost off the charts.
: ForecasterColby what dos this mean for the new hurricane year this year?
Sorry but I am correct here. I read this years ago when developeing my plan.

"Another feature of tropical cyclones that probably plays a role in forming and maintaining the eye is the eyewall convection. Convection in tropical cyclones is organized into long, narrow rainbands which are oriented in the same direction as the horizontal wind. Because these bands seem to spiral into the center of a tropical cyclone, they are sometimes called "spiral bands". Along these bands, low-level convergence is a maximum, and therefore, upper-level divergence is most pronounced above. A direct circulation develops in which warm, moist air converges at the surface, ascends through these bands, diverges aloft, and descends on both sides of the bands. Subsidence is distributed over a wide area on the outside of the rainband but is concentrated in the small inside area. As the air subsides, adiabatic warming takes place, and the air dries. Because subsidence is concentrated on the inside of the band, the adiabatic warming is stronger inward from the band causing a sharp contrast in pressure falls across the band since warm air is lighter than cold air. Because of the pressure falls on the inside, the tangential winds around the tropical cyclone increase due to increased pressure gradient. Eventually, the band moves toward the center and encircles it and the eye and eyewall form (Willoughby 1979, 1990a, 1995)."

Bottom line weaken these bands and the storm weakens.


Nice information, however, if you read the first sentence it will only prove my point.

Another feature of tropical cyclones that probably plays a role in forming and maintaining the eye is the eyewall convection.

Not all the convection, only the convection in and near the eye wall. And how much impact this has in unknown which is stated with PROBABLY. As in the scientist is not sure, as in it is speculation. As I said before, Wilma had probably half or more of its convection over the water up to 85-87 degrees yet it still weakened pretty significantly after 24 hours because the eye was over land. If a spiral band cant maintain a hurricane once its eye has left the water, then theres no way they will weaken it if the eye is over warm water.

Once again you take what someone proposes as an opinion and make it a fact. And while Willoughby is a very respected scientist, that fact that he adds that hes not completely sure makes it impossible to say, as fact, that spiral bands over warm water fuel the hurricane and spiral bands over cool water will weaken it. Also did you forget about the other assumptions I pointed out, because those are just as important as this one.
KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta,

La Nina means that the water near the equator to the west of S. America is cooler then averge, opposed to El Nino where those waters are warmer. Through complex weather patterns and shifts in those weather patterns, La Nina ussually results in less shear in the Atlantic Basin with a stronger subtropical ridge(bermuda/azores High Pressure)
Hey Tony I figured I'd give up something else for your Global Warming files...Link...Since its all fake and everything...LOL...

Bye everyone..:)

Thanks,
Bob
HurricaneMyles so any way we could see a lot more cat 4 and 5 storm a lot more hurricane this year then last year and a lot more usa land falls im i right on this?
HurricaneMyles so any way we could see a lot more cat 4 and 5 storm a lot more hurricane this year then last year and a lot more usa land falls im i right on this?


Not necessarily. While shear does play a large role in if tropical storms develop, and strengthen into hurricanes, its not the only thing. With stronger trade winds (from the stronger high pressure) theres more likely to be Saharan dust spread far over the Atlantic. Saharan dust reduces the chances of a tropical wave forming into a depression and developing into stronger systems. Also, I may be wrong, but La Nina also can cause the SST in the Atlantic to be a bit lower then usual.

Really, there's no way to tell. I can say that its more likely to have an above averge season then a below averge, but I cant say what kind of storms will form. It all depends on the circumstances at the time.
If my calculations are correct then I get 100 kts from 140 kts (Cat 5) in 70 degree waters. That can't be right surely. It wouldn't weaken it that fast because it would be passing over the stream so it would leave and encounter warmer waters. Surely not right. I will check again.
I dunno because thier's only 5 equations on that page. I dont know which one your talking about. But I can say that it all depends on how long the center of the storm stays over the cool water. Shorter period of time, less reduction in internsity. Longer time over the cool water, more loss in intensity.

Plus, all those equations have more then just the SST variable. Outflow temp, saturation equivalent potential temperature at the ocean surface, boundary layer equivalent potential temperature,(all taken right from that page) plus tons more. All those have to be filled in, not just the SST.
Yeah Miles. I used the first one with standard Category 5 conditions and a 10 kt speed.
Even if you are wrong Atmosweather, you're still ending up with a minamal cat 3 with 115 mph winds.
65 degree water yields 81 kts
That's amazing I think. The only trouble is that the tunnels couldn't maintain themselves forever, unless you shut the mechanism down until a storm comes along. And, its so expensive and will take a very long time.
atmosweather mor e mail for you
Yeah i'm guessing that the cooler the water gets the faster the intensity drops off. Thats amazing that it could reduce the intensity by 60kts.
Yeah i'm guessing that the cooler the water gets the faster the intensity drops off. Thats amazing that it could reduce the intensity by 60kts.
Its an exponential function with all the parameters included. I graphed it.
I hope we can all find a little middle ground here with our global warming, the doing of man? debate. Ya'll finally dragged me in, if only for 1 post.~
Yeah we know the earth is warming & we really don't know how much of that is caused by humans. We have learned from history that if you clear huge areas of land of their trees, you will most likely make a desert. Also a few weeks ago Dr Master had a most interesting blog on a particular type of cloud that happens only toward the poles, in extreme cold, when ozone is being destroyed from what we've put in the air. We know the air frozen in ice, before the industrial revelution, didn't contain these things, that, we know we are or were releasing into the air since & are finding in only the ice frozen since the start of the industrial revelution. We know we put a hole in the ozone, we monitered it extensively & were shocked in 1985 that it suddenly had a sizable hole in it~ it's easily recreated in a lab. CFC's weren't banned for no reason. more on ozone hole from the impartal people at University of Cambridge. Better yet the Evironmental Protection Agency's take on it~ from their site~
Global Warming Potential: a number that refers to the amount of global warming caused by a substance
The GWP is the ratio of the warming caused by a substance to the warming caused by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. Thus, the GWP of CO2 is defined to be 1.0 . CFC-12 has a GWP of 8,500, while CFC-11 has a GWP of 5,000. Various HCFCs and HFCs have GWPs ranging from 93 to 12,100. Water, a substitute in numerous end-uses, has a GWP of 0.
Here's the EPA's chart on non-ozone depleting substance that still have GWP, it includes their uses. Here's the table for ozone depleting substances, including their GWP. If we lose our ozone we lose the vegatation & alot of plankton as well as experience increased skin cancers & lowered immunity, but the latter won't really matter if there is no food. We know we can affect our enviroment including our atmosphere or NASA's climatoligy people wouldn't have this mission statement~ The mission of the NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) is to develop a scientific understanding of the Earth System and its response to natural or human-induced changes that will enable improved prediction capability for climate, weather, and natural hazards.
Many species & civilizations have come & gone before us, some we suspect exited because of what they did to their enviroment & then what their enviroment did to them or just the latter. Most, we will most likely never know what caused their demise, just as we don't know if we're causing our own. I do believe the upswing in storms is part of an up trend on the natural cycle, I just hope we don't destroy any of the earth's balances that would prevent us from taking us to the down stroke of that cycle or worse.
this to all yet one no we now have Tropical Cyclone Tam
hey guys whats up is the heated debate over (: lol
hey whats up theboldman i am haveing a vary good day what a come to my blog
Hey all*** I know it has been a long time but I have been here all along...Just reading and trying to keep up with work and The Weather... well Happy New Year to all and I will chat with ya later...
Sorry cyclonebuster. I don't have graphing software on my pc. I did it on a TI-89 Plus calculator.
atmosweather mail for you
Wrong again cyclonebuster. Those calculations are the maximum intensity a storm can SUSTAIN over such waters. It doesn't mean that in an hour crossing a storm will drop 40kt, that's simply ridiculous.
well thats good david keep having a good day i have already looked at your blog thunderstorms and some low snow lets hope it happeneds
Excellent calculations atmosweatrher, perhaps you could send me the equations you put into your TI-83 and I could check it out. I would like to mess around with the numbers. I dont really know what 'standard' cat 5 conditions are so it would help to see what you used.

Another thing, are you using the formula's how ForcasterColby said? That is how strong a hurricane can get above 65-70 degree waters with all other Cat 5 conditions or is that calculating how much it would drop in so many hours over cold water?

The only question is if we could reduce 85-90 degree waters by 15-25 degrees so that we can get 65 degree temps in a reasonable amount of time, plus the ecological ramifications.

The only question is if we could reduce 85-90 degree waters by 15-25 degrees so that we can get 65 degree temps. Another flaw I though about was how Andrew impacted the coast.
Sorry about that, was trying to edit my comments and accidentally hit the post button.

I was finishing up with how Andrew was moving very quickly and strengthened as he moved out of the Bahamas. He was already a pretty strong storm at probably a strong 3. In about 6 hours of so he strengthened to a Cat 5 and made land fall with a pressure of 922 mb. Now if the waters were lowered to say 75 degrees it obvious that he would have not strengthened in such a way but how the 50 miles or so of cooler water would have effected him during his 120 mile trip out of the Bahamas and into Miami is completely up in the air. It could have very reasonably maintained borderline Cat3/4 since he was moving at about 15-18 knots or maybe even became a weak Cat 4. Andrew could have also maybe weakened more then expected from the disruption of the warm water. Anything we say is complete speculation, now if you could get those guys to model it, that would be some awesome information.

BTW, I know that the WeatherUnderground track of Andrew completely disputes the figures I stated above, but I think their track in inaccurate. They have Andrew appearing to make landfall as a Cat 3. Even the preliminary reports state he was at least a Cat 4 at landfall and hint at the possibility of Cat 5 status. Then in the 10 year anniversary report it was officially changed to a Cat 5 at landfall. http://www.noaa.gov/hurricaneandrew.html has all the info I used. Particularly the satellite images and the reports.
Hey Bob,

I can see you insist on being sarcastic. Anyway...Can you please READ for a change what I've said all along...

That this WARMING of average temperatures worldwide (keep in mind, some areas are cooling)is being caused by Natural climate variability and BEGAN BEFORE the industrial revolution!

How can YOU or anyone say that the temperatures WOULD HAVE been different without greenhouse gas emissions...you avoid answering the question because you know the answer doesn't support you desired BELIEF...not FACT!

YOU CAN't NOR WILL YOU EVER KNOW.

Now, what happens when the AMO cycle reveres itself and we go back to below normal hurricane activity and few major hurricanes...Is that going to be blamed on human activities as well?

Please simply use the common sense God gave you for a change.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey everyone,

I'm simply TIRED of sarcastic and rude people who call you names if you have a different OPINION than their perspective. Therefore, I am going to leave these blogs for awhile...I came here to help and instead I find myself debating issues that have NO MERIT and are based STRICTLY on ASSUMPTIONS.

I will however still post blogs and you are welcome to visit and leave a comment anytime.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Chaser....
1st I have to apoligize........
When I "kinda" started all this I never meant for it to evolve into name callin' & such. I definetly like your views even IF the are different than my own. BTW, if ur wonderin if some of these people are ME being rude to you?
I can assure u this is not the case. Like I said in my blog Debate..... LOL even though I did kinda stray a little. I always look forward to reading your responses to my posts even though u prob. think I am a nut.
That being said I found another study that was not mentioned with the studies u guys were talkin about earlier....

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844

Hmmmm I'm wondering why it was not mentioned in your rebuttal study????????
For all the rest of the people here, come to my blog, there has been an ongoing debate about this topic for like a month LOL.
There has been alot of STRONG "evidence" for both sides of the issue.
Please evryone take a DEEP breath & relax a little so that this can go back to a debate,not a war.
I hate to muddy the waters further, but --

In all the discussions of Global Warming and whether or not human activity is part or all of the issue, how many of the discussions about temps in the Tropics have taken into account the fact that satellites recording daily maximum temps at the Equator were recently found to have drifted off course over time; that the satellites were in fact reporting nighttime temps as daily maximums???? Temperature maximums in the Tropics have certainly increased somewhat over recent decades.

As for Global Warming, whether or not it exists, and whether or not "Warming" or human activity has made Atlantic hurricanes worse in recent years, my position is this: Go stand in a forest in July, then go stand in a paved parking lot or on your roof. How can ANYONE think that humanity can keep cutting down trees, paving over land and building structures and NOT be increasing the heatload on this planet and having some kind of effect on the weather???

Thanks,

JP
Hi everyone, I've been away from the blogs for awhile, nice to be back again.

Cyclonebuster, I saw the tunnel description in your blog a week or two ago but can't find your blog now. So I don't know if you have provided any more detail. I'll check back again later in case I missed it.

Anyway I have a few questions about your tunnel idea. How much water will your tunnel move, and will it be enough to have any effect? If the tunnel is 200' by 50' and is in a 5mph current, can it possibly transfer more than 50,000 to 100,000 cubic feet per second from ocean bottom to the surface? That may sound like a lot, but the Gulf Stream between Bimini and Miami must have a volume of maybe a cubic mile each second, so it seems to me that the cold water brought to the surface by the tunnel would barely be a drop in the bucket and the effect would be nearly nil.

I am doing these calculations off the top of my head, assuming a channel 50 miles wide and 1000 feet deep with a current of 5mph. These assumptions could be way off, so if anyone wants to provide more accurate figures feel free. Anyway my point is that it seems like it would show up as no more than a chalk line on a sidewalk, for comparison.

And that's if there really is any mixing going on. I think HurricaneMyles raises a valid point. Even with a current, the colder water will still sink back to the bottom before significant mixing occurs. The colder the water, the faster it will sink back, and the less mixing will occur.
In response to the 12/24 hour crossing - it may drop that much strength in such a long crossing...but your stream is thin enough that if it were to take so long to cross it would upwell. Normally, of course, upwelling cools to surface waters by dragging up cold ocean floor water. However, thanks to you, it would upwell the WARM water from the ocean floor, because that's where you diverted the warmth to. Therefore, while your idea - assuming it works at all - might weaken a storm by 15-20kt, it would be highly unlikely to drop it much more then that. Epsecially a large strom will still be able to draw a lot of energy from outisde your cool stream, and continue to feed itself regardless.

The graphs you posted are a bit deceptive - they're in .5 degree increments, meaning that your oh-so-scary constant hurricane season remains pretty absurd. In thirty years, average SSTs in the atlantic are up like .3 degrees. Now, first of all, the reason storms do not form in winter is NOT low SSTs, though they are a factor. If you look at a current SST map, temps are still plenty high over the caribbean. The problem in december through march or so is very strong upper level winds blowing across the tropics, interfering with a storms development. Second, even at that rate, it'll be a century or more before we see SSTs in the winter even approach what they are now in summer.
Those numbers are fairly close, Philly. The Gulf Stream varys a bit in width and depth anyway.
Been away for way too long. Its crazy weather everywhere. Today its suppose to hit SIXTY around my hood. SIXTY in JAN I live in upstate NY we are suppose to be buried in snow by now and freezing our nads/teats off.

Well tommorrow suppose to be more normal 20's and snow. But according to the good doc (Dr. Masters) usual weather ain't coming back until next month. Which will be interesting since the lake is not frozen so any good artic front from the north will nail us hard.
Hey buster,
I'm not even touching the idea of tunnels being scientifically or logistically feasible, but what if a storm does not traverse the expected path? You said "This amout of area can be achieved with about 4 days of cooling prior to a storms arrival". During the season, do you check the so-called "cone of uncertainty" (to be said in ominous voice)? That is a huge area to cover, we're talking thousands of square miles that far in advance. It's simply a pipe dream.
Ok, say you do decide to cover the entire possible area of impact of the storm, financing that alone would approach the cost of rebuilding even (transport, installation, operation, maintenance). And what happens when your big, bad storm is over? You've injected tons of cool water to the surface. Good luck explaining the ecological effects to commercial fishermen, who are already hurting these years.
Honestly, folks, the best bet is to withdraw slightly from the coast (or at least those areas most in danger) and put in place very rigorous building codes. Talk with some of the folks in FL, after the last 2 years; some of them are going through a serious overhaul in their homes. If that's too much to ask, MOVE OUT! Storms are tragic, yet they play a real, often important role in the world system. Take hugely important seasonal rainfall, energy redistribution, and other impacts. It makes no sense. How about figuring out the tornado-proofing trailer parks before you go blowing water into a hurricane?
Cyclonebuster,

You're wrong about the year long-hurricane season. Like someone posted before, it's not the SST that prevent Atlantic tropical systems in the winter, it's all the wind shear and dry air. Right now there are places in the Atlantic like the Caribbean all the way across to Africa that are still in the lower to mid 80's. However wind shear is so strong in these parts of the ocean that no tropical cyclone will even form. Even the area of ocean that spawned Vince, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta had been overcome by extremely strong shear. You must understand that while SSTs are important, theyre not the only thing. Right now it is impossible to have a tropical system form in the Atlantic even in the water temps were around 100 degrees, theres simply too much shear. And unless something drastic happens to shift the winter weather pattern so that shear doesnt control the Atlantic Ocean, then we will never have a year round season that can produce a major hurricane during January or March, wind shear just doesnt allow it.
101. jeffB
Hurricanechaser wrote, among many, many other things:

"Just because people believe something MAY be true doesn't make it so. Therefore, it doesn't matter if 5 million scientists say that Global warming is a result of human activities, it still wouldn't make it true."

And none of those 5 million scientists would SAY that their statements "make it true". And, conversely, it doesn't matter if 5 thousand scientists say that global warming isn't a result of human activity, that doesn't make that true, either.

If you haven't already, you might want to check the lead editorial in the 6 Jan 2006 issue of Science. I'd provide a link, but we've got an institutional online subscription, and I don't think the link would work for non-subscribers. Here are a couple of excerpts of interest:

For more than two decades, the phenomenon of global warming and its scientific basis have been high-priority objectives for researchers in atmospheric physics and chemistry, oceanography, and paleoclimatology, among others. The consequences of the past century's temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events, the de-icing of the Arctic, and the geographic redistribution of plants and animals.

And:

There is now a broad scientific consensus with regard to the cause. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), largely produced as a result of human enterprises, are responsible for the increase of about 0.7 C in the past century. Models, now running at climate centers in several nations, agree that if we continue business as usual, we may expect a 2 to 5 C increase in the next century. With that, there may be a concomitant rise in sea level and an increase in the weather-related damage that has become a contemporary fact of life.

And, best of all:

The good news in this department is industry. BP, Shell, General Electric, and hybrid car makers have gotten the message that in the new climate environment, first movers may have the competitive advantage. An investor coalition including CalPERS, the giant California public employers' retirement system, has asked 30 insurance companies to disclose their climate change risks and say what they are doing about them. Actually, the giant reinsurance companies are ahead of them. Swiss Re--imagine this--may be asking holdouts like ExxonMobil this: If you are convinced there's no problem, how about excluding climate risks from your directors' and officers' policies? Good question!

Do you think that we shouldn't reduce greenhouse emissions because doing so would be too expensive? Do you think that the expenses related to consequent climate change would be lower? When it's time for corporations to risk their bottom line on these questions, do you recommend that they attach more weight to the conclusions of a thousand climatologists, or a dozen?
The NHC has released its report on tropical storm Jose.
(www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml?)
jeffB,
I agree with you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but even from the highlights you posted, I sense a great deal of uncertainty: "With that, there MAY be a concomitant rise in sea level and an increase in the weather-related damage that has become a contemporary fact of life."

A lot of things MAY happen with global warming, but again that's speculation. I think instead of turning the world upside down, we should first pursue some moderate solutions to the problem. Much weather-related damage is caused by human population growth - and living in disaster-prone regions (hurricane interviewees always say "it's worth it to live in paradise"), not an increase in dangerous weather phenomena.

Before we change everything, let's get some hard facts. I have a hard time proposing radical change because MODELS told me to do it. Take a modeling seminar or workshop, there are inherent problems with any of them, they all run on biased assumptions.
buster,
You are quite bold in your "bottom lines." I suppose you have read all scientific literature and even dissenting opinions?

If you are still so confident, I'll thumb-wrestle you for it.
That's why people dont listen to you cyclonebuster. You make comments like that just stating that something works or something will happen with out anything to support you.

You say there will be a year long hurricane season since SST's are rising, I pointed out the reason it wouldn't if the weather pattern stays as is. When ever someone brings up a very valid point like that one, or one such as lower SSTs wont cause fewer tonardoes, or that there are serious enviornmental side effects, or the production and maintence cost, you duck under your defense cover of "the tunnels work plain and simple" or something to that extent. People will never believe you if you just throw out opinions like they are fact.

Its a good thing you are strong willed at this idea, but you have to be opened minded if you expect everyone else to be.

How can you assert your tunnels work so certainly, when it's all in principle, anyway? Have they even been field tested? I've got a flying car I'd be willing so sell anyone interested, but I've only got the blueprints.
That's just it, you CAN'T remove all assumptions. As models are just that - models - they have to make assumptions, which are all biased to some extent, whether in design, measurement, or even concept. There is and never will be a perfect model, I'm sorry.
Im going to run an expirment see if his tunnels work. Fasting moving warm water at the top of a bucket. Colored cold water at the bottem. Put a hose in there and see if it draws and of the cold water up with the warm waters motion.
buster,
Is one opinion of one model sufficient proof? What specifications was it run on? You sure seem to be shooting a lot of magic bullets.
Sorry, buster.
Unlike the court of law where someone is innocent until proven guilty, the world of science works a little different. You see, something must be shown to be accepted fact.

I know deep down inside you want us to prove you wrong. However, the burden of proof is actually on you. That's how science works. It is not as though everything is true until someone proves it incorrect. It's actually the opposite. One model will not do that for you. Something to consider in your posts. That verbal mistake costs credibility.
115. jeffB
observer12,

Yes, there's a great deal of uncertainty, and the Science editorial, like most responsible discussion of the issue, makes that clear.

One problem in this debate is that so many people, on both sides, phrase their arguments as though they're certain. This is natural, because most people hate ambiguity and uncertainty -- they want to know the truth, and wishy-washy speculation about what might be true just frustrates them.

The biggest problem, of course, is that we don't have perfect models. There are limits on our theoretical understanding, on the frequency and density and accuracy of our data collection, and on our computational ability to run a 24-hour forecast in less than 24 hours. :-)

But it's unwise to throw up our hands and say, "Well, we can't be completely confident in our models, so let's just ignore them completely."

Our ability to forecast hurricane paths is still limited. There have been a number of incidents, even in the 2005 season, where coastlines have been evacuated because of the threat of an oncoming storm -- at great expense to those affected -- only to have the storm hit elsewhere, leaving the evacuated areas unaffected. Does this mean the evacuees were wrong to heed the warning? Ask those who stayed in New Orleans.

The solutions proposed to limit human greenhouse emissions entail great expense and economic disturbance, and it's possible that they'll turn out to be unnecessary. But the best guidance we have indicates that they're a good idea, and they'll also have benefits beyond the climate-change issue (reduced depletion of non-renewable resources, reduced emissions of other pollutants, reduced global political instability due to economic forces related to energy extraction).

It's all a gamble, with very high stakes, but we don't have the option of simply refusing to play the game. If we don't make any changes, we're still gambling.
Cyclone, I don't doubt that some flow would be created. But you're missing one key problem - the cold water is still more dense that the warm. As soon as it exits the tunnel, it will fall again.
Hey there Cyclonebuster,
I'm not hostile to you or your idea but I am a bit skeptical and you aren't saying much to convince me yet.

I agree with Forecastercolby, the cold dense water will settle back down before mixing. I know you think that the moving current is the fix for that problem, but I don't think so, I'd have to see some proof. After all, air masses can move across continents without significant mixing, so I don't see how another fluid such as water should be any different.

I think a fair test would be to find a river channel somewhere that has a current but is deep enough to have some temp variation from top to bottom and test a scale model there. It may not sound very practical but at least it would be a valid test. And if this is too impractical, how are we supposed to accept the idea of a bigger model in the ocean?
I don't know if you can edit your posts here the way you can in some forums. Once it's up, it's done. (I think)
Yes that's true, and there could be some mixing but I don't know how much. I admit I know almost nothing about the physics of how well these 2 different flows of water would mix. One flow is falling thru another layer, there has to be some heat exchange, but will it be enough to be significant?

You're talking as if you can achieve certain target temperatures and I think I see the basic mechanism you're proposing, but how much water is needed each second, what is the ideal temp differential, how well will they mix etc. What kind of calculations have been done? And I have more questions, but this is for starters.
Ill be setting the experiment up exactly how it would work in the ocean. Fast warm water moving on top of cooler water. There will be a bucket, cold water on the bottom colored so I can see it. On top of that I am going to put warm clear water. It will be about one third cold water and 2/3 warm water. Ill anchor a tube to the bottom the bucket so that it stays in place with the bottom of the tube about 2 inches from the bottom and the top of the tube about 1 inch from the surface.. Then Ill use a hose to move water across the surface and a few inches under the surface, their will be a place in the bucket for the water to fall out of so that its not just overflowing on all sides but has a certain direction just like an ocean current.

I dont see how this will be much different then the real thing. Certainly no farther off then a computer model.
Or you could build one of the tunnels from earth through the atmosphere. Boyles Law shows us the pressure difference will mean air will move out into space.
The air flow this causes can be utilised to create electricity by using a wind generator.
By placing it near the equator it will cause the cold air from the poles to flow down towards the equator, thus countering global warming.
We could also place it over a hurricane and literally suck it out into space.
Any one want to model it for me?
HurricaneMyles,
Kerry Emanuels formula proved it.65 degree water temp =81 knots.70 degree water temp.=100 knots. Proof enough for me.
Also the idea has never been thought of before so there is nothing to study.Someone model it for me unbiased and prove me wrong.


Actually, we still don't know if that's how strong a storm can strenghten to over those temperature waters with all other Cat 5 conditions or if that's a strong storm going over the waters and weakening. Until Atmosweather lets us know how he calculated everything we can't be sure. I would love to be able to reproduce his results. Reproduction of results is the only way to prove something. One test doesn't prove something, hundreds or thousands of tests prove something.
Yeah and suck the rest of the air out of the atmosphere too! That certainly wont work cyclonebuster.
HurricaneMyles,
You must remember that both layers of water are moving along at the same rate even at depth


Then what's casuing the pressure difference??
Ok, now I'm confused. The top of the tunnels is facing the way the current flows, right? The bottem of the tunnels faces the opposite way obviously and has opening facing opposite the direction of the current, which pushes itself into the tunells and up them. And I right here?
Sorry about that, I thought it sounded too far fetched to be serious, but then again this whole tunnel idea is pretty far fetched, expecially with all the stuff you say it would prevent.
HurricaneMyles,
You must remember that both layers of water are moving along at the same rate even at depth


Just found something to contrary. Looking for more data to confirm. But this page(which is a university page) says that the gulf stream velocity decreases substantially with depth with the top 200 m having the greatest velocity (about 2mph) and anything under 1000m being 10cm/s or less.

This is the Link I used for the information.
Myles~ your on to something as to the way to model this. It needs a small scale scientific test to retrieve the data needed before any type of climate computer modeling is even attempted.

To start with & keeping it simple, this would in no way totally supplys your data but it does in ways test the theory, to see if testing on a larger scale is worth while. ~ A bath tub or kiddy pool~ filled roughly to the same percentages with salt water to ice as the earth. some Leggo contenants, sea shelfs, sea bottom & current channels, would't hurt(prefurably in roughly the shape of the Atlantic ocean basin). Set it up in a fairly cold place, with ice compiled at both ends (ice blocks would be better), add water, add food coloring(excellent cause it naturaly sinks before stirred), add finely ground sea salt to surface, til ocean salinaty of surface is reached. No stirring. Turn on some lamps across the middle with heat at center being as average summer temps in the tropics. Very important here ~don't let the surface get too hot, that combined with a lack of verticial shear & you could produce a hurricane in your living room ~lol~ i couldn't resist. Okay~ Let it cook. Check your temps, bottom & top as well as salinity. You may need to adjust room temp, lamps or ice to reach desired mini world gulf stream that you can maintain. Once here insert tiny straws that are cut to length of preportion to ocean floor, out rigged with floats & wieghts for stability.

Those straws would be so little, it makes me doubt this could have enough impact to weakin a cane. But my doubt doesn't mean it won't work. Weather modification is being pushed & this could be a less harmful solution. Even if it didn't cool the waters enough, the idea to power cities is intreaging.

CycloneBuster~ it takes more than a great idea. You have to test & prove or find a parter that will.
There would be different rates of transport at depth, due among other things to interaction with atmospheric currents, temperature (and salinity)-dependent density and viscosity, and interference from the seafloor.
Sorry for the long post, but this is hilarious. While looking for information I found another message board where cyclonebuster has been and he found even more resistance there then he did here. Also a person named interloper seems to know much about the principles that cyclonebuster proposes plus more. He claims to be a mechanical engineer very well versed in the area of fluid mechanics. I'd like everyone to read his post about all the flaws in the basic principles of this design. Also, with all these questions about modeling the design, this guy did, and apparently it wasnt to cyclonebuster's approval since he hasnt mentioned it once here. Once again, sorry for the long post. I just felt that this information is incredibly important and really gives us a true engineering view on the plausibility of this idea.


After reading your post again, there's a few things I wanted to clear up.

In reply to:

Understand that pascal's principle applies at the base of the tunnel and Bernoulli's principle applies at the top of the tunnels.


Both principles, if they do indeed apply, will apply everywhere inside and outside the tunnel.

In reply to:

This is what creates the pressure differential within the tunnels.
As long as there is a pressure differential flow occurs.


Flow occurs in the presence of a pressure differential if the driving pressure is enough to overcome the inertia of the fluid, viscous friction effects, and other losses in the tube. Adding heavier cold water to the tunnel will bring the pressure differential back to zero.

In reply to:

It is the current that changes these pressures at both ends and therefore you have flow. Remember what pascal tell us.

Pascal's principle states that the pressure exerted on a fluid is distributed equally throughout the fluid.


...remember that Pascal's principle isn't an absolute law. It's only an observation that can be made in fluids at quasi-equilibrium...

In reply to:

This is what happens at the base of the tunnel. That force (KINETIC ENERGY) is transferred through the whole leangth of the tunnel it does not care about density.



Kinetic energy and force are two very, very different things. Force, as you said, IS transfered through the whole length of the tunnel. Force does not depend on density.

Kinetic energy, however, depends on density very much. Kinetic energy is esseintally the energy stored in an object because of motion. The equation for kinetic energy is 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity, or, simply, 0.5*m*v^2

The mass of a fluid is it's density multiplied by its volume. The equation for the kinetic energy of a fluid is 1/2*density*volume* velocity^2. Like I said, kinetic energy is very dependant on density.

In reply to:

Kinetic energy is transferred instantly to the top.


Absolutely not. You have no guarentee that any kinetic energy will be transfered to the top. If you mean "force" instead of kinetic energy, then this is almost true, except that the process is nowhere near instant. Force is transfered to the top of the tunnel at the speed of sound, which is a far cry from instantaneous.

In reply to:

Once Bernoulli's principle is applied at the top it removes what pascal's principle forced up there and the cycle is on going untill you stop the current.


If you manage to get a pressure differential under the most ideal of circumstances, there will indeed be flow... in this case. The question is, how long will this pressure differential last until the excess weight of the cold water in the tube cancels out the small pressure difference from the current and the entire tube stagnates?

Its an intruiging problem, but a difficult one. I have some computational fluid dynamics software at my disposal, which might yield some insight as to how much pressure the current could generate, if you're really interested in pursuing this problem further. I don't suspect it will be very much.

cyclone,

I modeled a 50 foot (15 meter) duct inserted into a 2m/s uniform flow field, using the density of seawater as 1025 kg/m3. Given that you're talking about a rectangular tunnel with a wide aspect ratio, I modeled in in two dimensions using the narrow dimension as the cross section, figuring that most of the water that goes around the tunnel's mouth would do so by going over or under it.

Because this is a 2D approximation of a 3D problem, there is one major limitation. The solution assumes that the duct is infintely wide, and thus no water is escaping by going around the sides, only over or under. Because you've got an aspect ratio of 1/4, this is a fairly reasonable approximation. In reality, the pressure boost would be a little bit less.

To solve the problem, I used Fluent 6, which is an industry-standard CFD program. Assuming invicid flow (seems reasonable given our Reynolds numbers are on the order of 10^7), the software solves the governing equations in an iterative process. I ran the solution for about 1000 iterations, adapting the mesh twice to smooth out some of the rough spots. Other than that, it converged pretty nicely.

I modeled the duct as if it were sealed, which represents your tunnel just as you point the mouth into the current and none of the seawater has started moving. The pressures during startup will be the highest the tunnel sees, because (to explain it simply) once the water starts moving the current stops running into it so hard.

So the picture below shows the pressure contours around the tunnel mouth at startup. Each colored line is a line of equal pressure, and you can see the strength of the pressure on the colored scale on the left. As you can see, the highest pressure is inside the tunnel, starting right at the mouth, and it's about 2.09x10^3 N/m2.

That's 2090 Pascals, or about 0.3 psi, which isn't much. It would certainly be enough to start a really slow flow, but the temperature effect comes into play pretty quickly.

Just looking at some basic seawater density figures, a cubic meter of seawater at 60F weighs about 5.0kg (11 lbs) more than a cubic meter of seawater at 90F (I think 90F is a little unrealistic for the water's surface temperature, that's like a hot tub).

How far the 0.3psi will push the water column will depend on the actual temperatures, and the temperature gradient of the ocean between the surface and the depth you want the tunnel's mouth at.

If you could dig up some of that information... even something as basic as temperature measurements every 100ft of depth in the geographic area you want to put the tunnel, we could figure out exactly how much pressure you need to drive the flow.

If you're comparing an empty tube to one that's already filled with water, you're compairing apples to oranges.

But I will say this: if you stick an empty tube down through 500 feet warm water at 25C so that the tube's end is just inside a layer of cold water, the warm water above will be producing a gauge pressure of 1518 kPa at the bottom of the tube.

When you open that valve, the cold water rushes in. Let's say the cold water is at 5C. The difference in density is 4.2kg/m3. Because the cold water is heavier, the same amount of pressure will raise it a smaller distance. Based on some quick calculations, the cold water will rise just under 497 feet, which means that looking at the top of the tube sticking out of the water you will notice a three foot difference in water height.

Now, we're not talking about an empty tube. We're talking about one that's full of warm water, and instead of a 1518 kPa pressure difference, we're talking about a 5kPa pressure difference.

5kPa is not a lot of pressure. Atmospheric pressure, for example, is 101kPa. I figured out earlier that at the temperatures you gave me, the cold water weighs 50 Newtons more per cubic meter than warm water. 5kPa will hold up 5000 Newtons per square meter, which means you get 100 meters of additional cold water weight before everything stops.

You either need more pressure or a smaller temperature difference before you can show that this idea has a chance of being technically feasible... which is what a company will want to see before they spend money proving that it can be done.

If you don't believe me, find another mechanical engineer competent in this area of fluid mechanics. I'll even send you the spreadsheet I did my calculations on.


After reading more of what this guys said I think this states everything we need to understand.

Quote:
"To me, the fact that you believe Pascal's principle and Bernoulli's principle are actually laws is already an indication that you're in over your head. I don't have to disprove them: they don't govern any real life fluid that has ever been known to exist. They only provide reasonable approximations of real life behavior under certian conditions: and this isn't one of them."
No, buster, what this person is saying that - under the conditions YOU propose - force is not sufficient to provide sufficient lift of colder waters. Hurricanes and upwelling do not occur merely because of temperature gradients, there is also an active, external force applied to them (evaporation for hurricanes, and wind + Coriolis for shelf upwelling).
Um no, he said with out lots of added energy upwelling cannot occur. Hurricanes obviously have lots energy to add to the ocean, enough to cause upwelling. And reading his calculations and concepts of the principles (I have basic understanding of these being in school for civil engineering, but not like his) and these few sentences, makes me believe his logic is completely correct.

Quote:
"Bernoulli's equation is a simplified form of Euler's equations, and Euler's equations are a simplified form of the Navier-Stokes equations. Each time you simplifiy a set of governing equations, you do so by making certain assumptions that make various parts of the equations reduce to zero. Bernoulli's equation only works under the following assumptions: that the fluid is inviscid, incompressible, irrotational, along a streamline, and is under the influence of a conservative body force (like gravity). This, of course, is an accurate representation of no fluid that has ever been known to exist, but under certain conditions can provide a reasonably accurate approximation of particular flows. "

I really dont think thier logic is flawed, just yours cyclonebuster
Nope, coriolis force onlt applies to the VBRY large scale. Those tunnels arent large enough to be signifacntly effected.
A few tunnels are nothing like a continental shelf. What is your question about Coriolis?
Not so easy. He said you could get 497 ft with cold water if you had the pipe filled with air then opened one side under water, then the cold water would rise. That takes a lot of energy to get a air filled pip hundreds of feet below the surface.
As they say on Wednesday nights - "myth busted". Hurricanes are indeed scary, but I think we need to entertain other ideas.
Cyclone! Your idea is noted, considered and rejected.

Next?
Millions of very thin tubes in the one big tunnel, may help bring cold water to the suface through cappiliary action.
But expensive to produce.
Or look at using transpiration as a force to bring up the cool water
If you really want to continue with this idea cyclonebuster, you're going to have to do what that guy on the other web board said. Find a mechanical engineer well versed in fluid dynamics and have him do the calculations for you. If he says its possible, patent the idea and take it to a large engineering company and have them look at it. For as much as we doubt this idea will work, if you really feel as strongly as you do, modify your idea to make it work. I'm sure if you've thought long and hard about this idea, so keep it up. Maybe you can figure something out to lower SSTs. It's unlikely, but so was discovering and inventing half the things we have.
Hey JeffB,

I didn't want to ever post in here again but I have to respond...

Listen closely to Facts....
sORRY i HAVE TO GO...
HEReS A POST FROM fshheads blog.

Posted By: hurricanechaser at 10:49 AM GMT on January 13, 2006.
Hey fshhead,

Your blog will be one that I will continue to visit on occasion as long as everyone can stick to the debate and not call one another names, etc.:)


The 30 year period will naturally show an increase in Atlantic storms since 1995 because of the AMO cycle not any Global warming...I want to clarify that NO ONE should dispute the world has gotten warmer...It is a fact.

The debate is whether this factual warming is because of human activities or would've happened without the industrial revolution, which is my belief due to Natural climate variability where the Earth was MUCH WARMER in the past than it is now.

In your study which suggests that the global activity MAY as they put it COULD be responsible for increased activity and intensity of hurricanes, it states basically that its all based on computer modeling which is usually WRONG most of the time, they very rarely get a 24 hour forecast right much less one for more than 30 years!

In other words, if you read it objectively, that CAB"T PROVE IT, NO ONE CAN...it's an undeniable fact.:)

Here is their summary...

We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, JUST MORE GUESS WORK AND ASSUMPTIONS. The computer models are only as good as the information put into them. Their study mentioning a doubling of CO2 levels, MAY have this effect, are based on CO2 levels that may be much less which is the WRONG data as described with the following link.:)

Have a good night Fshhead and everyone else.:)

Your friend,
Tony

please see his blog and the link of studying showing the research v|being presented is based on incorrect assumptions put into the data>:)

thanks,
Tony
I agree 100% that there is a La Nina this winter. Look at how much rain Seattle, WA has had. Look at the lack of rain in the South West.

I remember the last major La Nina.

Just as an example of the type of winter where having in Southern California...

Yesterday 80% chance of rain
Earlyer today 60%
Right know around 40%
HEY hurricanechaser COME BACK
well what dos ever have to say hmmm did you all made hurricanechaser mad?
em>Hey JeffB,
I didn't want to ever post in here again but I have to respond...
Listen closely to Facts....

Oh well..Ya couldn't stay way huh!!!..LOL..
Foe ya'll drought stricken people~ the fire danger though lower today, the 18Zgfs rainfall doesn't look good
Looking like the dust bowl out there in Oklahoma...
167. F5
jeffB wrote...There is now a broad scientific consensus with regard to the cause. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), largely produced as a result of human enterprises, are responsible for the increase of about 0.7 C in the past century. Models, now running at climate centers in several nations, agree that if we continue business as usual, we may expect a 2 to 5 C increase in the next century. With that, there may be a concomitant rise in sea level and an increase in the weather-related damage that has become a contemporary fact of life.

Interesting that on the day you post this, the following study was released...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc

They now say that plants are outputting between 10-30% of all the methane in the atmosphere. Hmm...I wonder if the previous study that included methane in the atmosphere as a result of human actions will have to be redone.

This is one reason why studies which state as fact that humans as the cause of all global warming are incorrect. Another reason, as hurricanechaser has pointed out, is that they have no idea if the earth would be warming just as it is now if humans emitted zero greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. There's no way to prove it. Add to that the uncertainty regarding the reliability of the models used, and the uncertainty regarding whether we even understand or know about all the variables that influence the climate on both a local and national scale makes such assertions of fact utter and complete nonsense. It doesn't matter if thousands of scientists concur with each other. They still can't prove it.

No one disagrees that global warming is occurring. We do disagree that we know for fact that humans are the primary cause of global warming in this century. To do so ignores the thousands of years of ice core samples and other evidence that has shown the earth to go through warming and cooling periods long before humans put any CO2, methane, etc into the atmosphere.
I'm not sure what either of those have to do with the tunnels...but there are other things that can cause upwelling. Mid-latitude cyclones can causes tremendous waves and thus plenty of mixing of the water, too. The continents also do the same thing as the Charleston bump, just on a much grander scale
OK, buster, so now you are proposing building seamounts?! You're tunnels are nowhere close to that.
175. jeffB
I can only repeat what I said earlier. The vast, vast majority of scientists considering these issues believe that human activity is contributing significantly to (not "the sole cause of") global warming. Yes, it's possible that that vast majority is mistaken. But it's not the way to bet.

All this talk of "hidden agendas" leading scientists to blame global warming on human activity is just ridiculous. I haven't yet seen even one convincing rationalization for how this could happen. I also don't think that all dissenting scientists are being paid off by the oil industry, but the oil industry is funding some of the anti-global-warming research, straight up.

As I said before, the risks are great no matter which side of the bet we take. Most of the people who really study the issue, though, are convinced that we need to start spending some money and effort on amelioration NOW, or we'll pay much more money -- and suffer much more -- as the consequences build in the coming years. If you choose not to do anything different, you're still gambling.

And saying "well, they're all just wrong", no matter how many times you say it in how many thousands of words, doesn't make it so. And pointing consitently to the one paper in ten, or one paper in one hundred, that confirms what you want to believe, doesn't make it so, either.

I'm not asking people not to test and, when necessary, disprove papers that support the "conventional wisdom". What I would like to see is a more balanced presentation of both sides of the argument -- and balanced does NOT mean "equal time for both sides" when one side is a tiny scientific minority. This is a concept that seems lost on the American people, and certainly on the American media.

I'd also like to see less of the "your models aren't trustworthy" refrain. We know the models aren't perfect. If you can construct a model that corrects their defects, and can show that it does so, we'll be happy to consider your model as well. But saying "your model isn't perfect, so we should ignore it" is a non-starter. Putting your head in the sand is not a viable option.
hey Chaser and others in denial, I guess your motto is "Don't worry, be happy... " - since we can't prove that human activity is contributing to the global warming currently underway, we should do nothing to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem I have with this approach is that if you're wrong, by the time we can prove to you folks that human activity is contributing global warming (ie. once temperatures are higher than they've ever been in the history of the planet), it will probably be too late to do anything to get things back under control and irreparable damage will have been caused to ecosystems and the lives of many, many people.

What is the harm in prudently doing what we reasonably can to lower atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (ie. make our vehicles and utilities more efficient, insulate our homes better, seek alternative energy sources and plant lots of trees) - just on the off chance that you're wrong and that human activity is contributing to global climate change?
I still can not believe that anyone would actually think that cutting down nature and poluting the world is not changeing the Climate it's trully Astonishing to me
I personally have no problem with trying to bring man made pollutants under control. There are many other reasons /besides/ the global warming issue to do so. After all, most of these pollutants are /toxic/ to humans and animals, even CO2 in large quantites.

I just object to the near panic that people are trying to instill about a subject that appears to have completely natural causes, ie, the normal warming up after a cold stretch that has been called a "mini-iceage"!

I gotta go to work. I'll probably peek in again tomorrow morning.
yes Snowman it is sad that people really think this way. But I think the majority DO believe it is making a difference to our Climate. And the ones that dont are just fooling themselves. The reality is none of us are going to be around to see what really is going to happen, but our children will and there children will...
Amen Snowman
They dont prevent global warming. The globe would continue to warm if its in a warming cycle or if man is doing it(unlikely totally us, but I do believe that putting a hole in the ozone can only contribute) or it could start to cool, who knows. People thought that in the 40s-60s when the Earth was cooling. I dont understand why you think these tunnels would affect global warming at all.
Snowman, they're not saying that we aren't changing the climate or that we should do nothing about it. Its simply impossible to say how much we are or if we really contribute at all. They're tired of hearing people spout that global warming is caused by man like it's a fact when its far more debatable then that. The Earth's climate is subject to such variation it's amazing. It's gone into ice ages in decades and come out of them just as fast. However, reducing greenhouse emissions is good for a variety or reasons, not soley that it will reduce global warmng, which it could or it could not. And you say planting lots of tree's helps, well its been concluded in a recent study that trees account for 10-30% of the methane released into the air, which is supposed to contribute to global warming.
"Aren't you guys glad the tunnels prevent global warming. I sure am."

LOL. That's so ridiculous I don't want to dignify it with a response, but I feel the need to. I would love to know how this prevents global warming? Someone as well-versed in physics as you are should know about the Law of Conservation of Energy - it has to go *somewhere*
Recent research shows tunnels also cure backaches, impotency, baldness, and the common cold.
187. TPaul
The last main stream research that I have seen on global warming suggested a 3 degree F temp increase in global temperature over the next century. Of that increase 1/2 degree to 1 degree is potentially the result of human activity. Now we can debate whether that is significant, for me I don't think it is helpful to be an alarmist especially when I think it is a joke to think that we can reverse this over all warming trend. I do advocate being going stewards of the land but ultimately of all the problems in the world, global warming is not one we can afford to take head on until we have stablized the world population to a level that the planet can sustain.
188. F5
Yes Snowboy, we're in denial...lol. Always beware those who scream the sky is falling and demand immediate action before it's too late.

There are reasons to cut down on pollutants, but stating as fact that man is responsible for global warming is not one of them. I don't understand how many times it has to be pointed out that the earth has gone through countless warming and cooling phases throughout millenia. To state without reservation that this particular warming phase is the direct result of human activity is beyond ludicrous. There is absolutely no way of knowing the extent of human influence on the current warming. As chaser and others have said, it's not that we don't believe it's possible. It could be. Man could be a primary, secondary, tertiary, or non-factor in the current warming phase. No one knows. To proclaim that one knows is an outright lie. To proclaim that we must then take drastic action to reduce the effects of a variable whose input is unknown is a waste of our limited resources. I'm all for a cleaner environment, and that to me should be the primary driver behind any effort to reduce emissions and pollutants into the atmosphere. We do need to protect our resources, including the air and the water. But not because some climate model(s), dependent on a multitude of variables whose values cannot be truly known and the interactions of which are not totally understood, says something may get worse if we don't do something now. Our modelling capability is so limited, I certainly would not bet the economy on it. And if you doubt the effects of what Kyoto might do, take a look at what's happening in the countries of the European Union, who have implemented the costly measures (and yet are still failing to meet their targets).

I can certainly see why hurricanechaser decided to leave the discussion, although I wish he wouldn't. If the only voices that are heard are yours and others like you, we may head down paths that could be disasterous for the United States.

As a final note, even on the assumption that the current global warming is directly attributable to human activity, and assuming that all the necessary resources are put forth to reduce our emissions, what happens if it ends up that our activity was the only thing keeping us from plunging into another ice age? What do we do then? What will you say to the millions of people who will freeze and/or starve to death around the world? Until someone can prove that humans are the primary cause, and can prove that any action we take won't have a worse negative effect, then the best thing we can do is continue to study the problem in hopes of gaining a better understanding, and work on ways to help solve the problem. And as I said at the beginning of this post, we would benefit more from implementing any measures as the means to cleaning the air we breathe and the water we drink. Or perhaps we could use some of that money to help others around the world to develop sustainable agriculture and clean water so that they don't die of starvation and disease. Both of those seem to be a more reasonable use of some of our wealth than attempting, perhaps futilely, to stop a naturally occuring phenomenon, with unknown consequences upon success.

Oh, but then, I forget, I'm in denial, or am I in collusion with big oil, or maybe I'm just stupid. After all, based on most of the comments I've read, you all don't have any rebuttal to our argument, but you sure love to throw around ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you. I guess that's just how it is with those who think they hold some moral high ground. After all, those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves, right?
TPaul, why do you say global warming, if it is indeed human induced, cannot be reversed? Simply put, we have added lots and lots of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The earth warms because of this, but if we were to say cut all greenhouse gas emission and have the concentration of the greenhouse gasses go down over time, the planet would cool back down to where it should be.
190. F5
Well, if the primary purpose of a hurricane is to redistribute the heat content of the tropical oceans so that they don't overheat, what does building these "tunnels" do for that. It seems that if they were effective, it would create other issues, in that the heat content of the ocean would stay in its place, which could also have unforseen consequences.

Sometimes, you ought not tinker with things you really don't understand.
Precisely, Trouper..."the planet would cool back down to where it should be" Where should the planet be? We're not living in a steady-state system, folks!
192. F5
Trouper415...and where "should it be"? You act as though there is some thermal constant that represents an equilibrium of the earth's climate. That's just total non-sense. The climate is an open, dynamic system, that responds to untold inputs in a variety of ways that we can't even begin to fathom. We don't even know what all those inputs are, or how they all interact. For all we know, the climate might be compensating for any increase that humans may induce and that the warming might occur even if there were no human inputs. After all, it's done this for millenia. It's not like before the industrial revolution, the earth's climate was some stable, predictable, system that produced the same output every year.
193. TPaul
Trouper415, I say that global warming as a natural occurance can not be reversed. I do believe that global warming is a fact, and I am even willing to say that for aurgument sake we can say that human activity has the potential to impact global warming. My point is if you eliminated all human produced green house gases tommorow and we got back to a pre-industralized atmosphere you would cut the overall rise by 10 to 20 percent. I do think that in my lifetime this debate will be over shadowed by many more significant problems. That is not to say that the loss of cities like New Orleans and the lost of Artic wildlife is not significant but man will adapt and new species will arise. Of course eventually the global temperature will go back the other way and some point in the future this debate will be reversed in what ever the medium of communication is at that time. I will appologize now if my spelling at this time of the morning is less then perfect.
F5 and others with his beliefs,

First off, the earth has been around for a heck of a long time. For all we know, there might have been other races of humans that were wiped out at another time. However, lets talk about our generation of humans and see the difference we are causing to the planet. Humans are very intelligent creatures simply put, and throughout history we are the only animal on this planet that has been able to manipulate our surroundings; plant, animal and the physical properties of this earth, to best fit our needs. Animals like dinosaurs, tigers and whales, although very powerful in their own right, do not have the ability to manipulate their surroundings even CLOSE to the way humans do. We are also the only species on this planet to have ever lived that has limited other creatures to live. No other animal for instance has been able to domesticate another animal such as we do with ease. Basically, humans have GREAT power, maybe greater than we really know. And to say that we cannot manipulate our CLIMATE might seem reasonable at first, however considering how far the human race has come, it makes sense. Through the billions of years this earth has been around, there has never been an animal such as us to rule this earth... and it is our duty living here, to respect the power we have and realize what we are doing. Through all those years before humans ever graced this earth with our footsteps, animals then NEVER changed the climate. And that makes sense. However, could you imagine an animal back then doing something as daunting as driving a car, being cooled by air conditioning or talking on a cell phone? This may not answer your question directly, however when one says we cannot and have not manipulated our climate, we must step back and realize the power or man and woman.
How can you say an animal never changed the planet? How do you know? Have you records? I'm not saying it has happened before but just like we cant prove global warming is man induced you cant prove that an animal has never altered its environment significantly. Think about this though, its believed by some scientists that early algae and plants began converting CO2 to oxygen billions of years ago. That certainly changed the climate. And while we may have some influence over our environment, no one is disputing that we have changed the environment dramatically, we cannot go so far to say that we hold total control. There are so many more inputs then just what we contribute.
Well, if it seemed like I was saying we have total control, thats not what I was intending. I just wanted to make the point to the people who dont believe in human induced global warming, that we have more power than we probably think. And even the point that F5 brought up about the earth having the ability to balance the climate, that is partly true. For as something like algae that has been outputting c02 for FAR longer than we have been around, I still believe the rapid rate at which we have outputted greenhouse gasses, the earth has not been able to catch up with us in her balancing process.
the earth has not been able to catch up with us in her balancing process

Actually she could be balancing herself out right now. If those recent reports about the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift slowing down are true then its possible many of the currents around the world are weakening due to the warming of the Earth. They could also be doing this for other reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. But the point Im trying to make is that if those currents slow to a near stop, we are going to be in for much cooler weather, as in an ice age. And that could very well happen in our lifetimes if its true that the currents have slowed a 1/3 in 10 years. If the trend continues the currents wont exist anymore in 20-30 years.
HEY I HAVE AN IDEA WHY DONT YUO GET A GIANT EGG BEATER AND MIX THE ARTIC OCEAN WITH THE ATLANTIC OCEAN?

199. Inyo
some of these ridiculous 'liberal-created global warming to harm our country' theories make me laugh. the credibility of this is right up there with those on the other side who believe that george bush was personally responsible for the world trade center disaster. sure, it is 'possible', but it is pretty fringe. We know that the conservatives don't like the idea of global warming because it might cost them money... and sadly, those conservatives currently in influence only think in the short term. Do they fail to realize that our dependance on oil is a leading reason we are constantly 'stuck' in the middle east? Even if we tear up the entire state of Alaska, it would only meet a fraction of our current energy needs. Human-caused climate change may or may not be the major reason for the current warming. That doesn't mean we shouldnt spend some resources on learning to use other energy sources. There probably won't be a major flood in Los Angeles this year. Does this mean we should remove all the flood control dams along our canyons? theres no 'proof' there will be a flood, and maybe we could sell off the flood control land to be developed... it might never flood again.

There certainly is a lot of misinformation and idealism coming from some 'leftist' people.. for instance through all those years before humans ever graced this earth with our footsteps, animals then NEVER changed the climate.... totally untrue. However, the belief that our country will be 'irreversibly damaged' by using a different energy source, or that we will 'never be capable' of impacting the weather, is silly. Most of us posting here live in one of the richest, most prosperous, powerful, inventive countries in the history of the earth. it is silly to think that we can't do without oil, and that all our scientists are liars. it's disturbing that so many 'flag waving' conservatives will say such things.

I also agree that it is a myth that we are in control of the environment.. i do think some people like the idea of global warming because it means humans can control the climate. In reality, yes, huge, sudden changes in climate have occured in the past, and will happen again... Yes, the earth has been much hotter than now, just a few thousand years ago it was so hot and dry in California that the Mojave Desert is believed to have spilled over the Tehachipi Mountains and taken up most of the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast Range (the xerothermic period). There are still desert plants stranded there from that period. It WILL happen again. (although it is believed that the current warming is making california wetter, not drier... different factors are involved). If we are in for one of these extreme natural fluxuations soon, we'd better be ready. and it is completely ridiculous to do anything that might make it harder on us... because it could be an interesting century.
hey inyo your in cali right?
201. Inyo
yup!

sorry if i come off too 'contentious' on here, on other message boards where i post it would just be considered status quo... but i dont want to do damage to what is one of my favorite weather blogs.

over time climate has been influenced by many factors, including the intensity of the sun, the layout of continents, meteor strikes, emissions of different life forms, the tilt and albedo of the earth, etc. Hundreds of millions of years ago, there was much more CO2 in the air. Over time, much of it got trapped under sediment when plants and plankton got buried in shallow seas. As the CO2 was buried, the climate cooled (no, i can't 'prove' the correlation but it seems likely). In the last few million years, there have been severe ice ages which to my knowledge did not occur to this extent 100 myo, except in extreme cases of meteors or huge volcanos.

Now, we are digging up much of the CO2 and putting it back in the atmosphere. Will this cause the earth to revert to dinosaur times? Probably not, but it may cause conditions to become more similar to what they were last time all this stuff was in the air. Is a warmer temperature going to 'kill' the earth? Of course not, this is hippie bull. Any biologist will tell you that warmer, wetter conditions lead to increased biodiversity in almost any ecosystem.

The problem is, we are a species of savannas, deserts, hot dry deserts and cold dry steppes. we don't do well in swamps, jungles, or salt marshes, for the most part - when we live there we usually either live in very low nomadic populations, or we convert the environment to something else. Unearthing all the carbon, if it indeed will cause the climate to warm back to how it was, will only harm us. But hey, maybe it is better this way, we get things moving again, back to the hot, wet primordial swamps, and then we die off and a new animal can take over and do a better job. We've got a billion years or so until the sun goes nova, right? Once that happens, we KNOW it will be warm.
ok thats cool were about socal or nocal
im in sac
For those whose attitude is "that no one can prove human emissions are contributing to global warming, so we don't have to do a thing to reduce them" my questions is:

Why not just reduce factory emissions, improve efficiency of our vehicles, improve the insulation on our homes, develop alternative energy sources (like wind and solar) and plant lots of trees because these are positive, useful and beneficial activities in their own right?
(You could just ignore the fact that they'd also possibly help to counteract the effects of global warming)

205. TPaul
Trees produce methane. I have always been a big tree planter and I have always believed that the destruction of the Amazon rain forest was a bigger issue in the short term in regards to human impact then green house gas prodution. But there is a research article comeing out in Nature that was repoted on NPR last week that has found that trees and I guess most leafy plants produce methane in signifcant quantities possible as a by-product of pectin production. Now I am not going to stop planting trees but it shows that there is still much we do not know about biological workings of our planet.
206. TPaul
Plants produce methane link

This is on the Royal Society of Chemistry site. My point here isn't to say don't plant trees, my point is to say we still have much to learn. Its like about 10 years ago when scientist made the discovery that the sun's energy output varies and that it has a direct impact on the planet. I was totally blown away because I would of thought that would of been something we would have surmised a long time ago but apparently not.
Cyclonebuster please. You're tunnels COULD MAYBE produce electricity if you could get them to actually flow. Right now I'd say you're a ways away from that. And electricity for 22 million people is reducing fossile fuel burning, assuming all those people used fossile fuels before and not hydro, solar, or wind plants, by 7%. And thats in the US alone; worldwide, a even smaller % less fossile fuels.
Sorry wrong % there. Made mistake in the calculations. It's really 10% less fossil fuels used. Its not much but a good start if you could get those tunnels working.
211. F5
Snowboy,

Did you read the entirety of my post? That is what I said. I am all for reducing our emissions from a pollution aspect. Of course, the benefits have to be equal to or greater than the costs. I've also said in the past that we should be researching alterntive energy sources, if for no other reason than to reduce our dependence on foreign countries who could cut us off at any moment and leave us in critical condition. If it turns out that has a benefit for reducing the temperature of the earth's climate a bit, then that's an additional benefit, assuming it doesn't lead to global cooling which can be just as or even more destructive than global warming.

However, despite the value of any research into alternative fuel sources, until they cost of petroleum, shale, and coal get to the point where they no longer make econmonic sense to use and it becomes feasible to use an alternative energy source, don't look for it to happen soon. The costs in infrastructure alone to build hydrogen stations for fuel-cell powered cars alone would be enormous, and who's going to build them if there are few, if any, fuel-cell powered cars on the road? We're caught in a chicken/egg situation right now and as I said, until the alternatives become economically preferable, little will be done other than continued research.
212. F5
Oh, how are you going to transfer the energy produced by the tunnels to the power grid? Aren't they out in the middle of the ocean somewhere?

While I could be completely wrong, one would surmise that if you've submitted this idea and no one is taking you up on it, it's likely because no one believes your hypothesis has any credibility.
I hate jumping in and leaving again, but I'm about to get my boyfriend out the door to Manila and things have been hectic, but I do wish to add a point I haven't seen referenced.

Inyo, you mention that at a point in the recent past the climate cooled. While you attribute this to CO2 being trapped in the rocks (which I won't say is not /part/ of the cause), one of the things I was taught in school was the joining of the North and South American Continents at Panama caused a severe shift in the global climate and it has been since that point that we have had repeated instances of ice-ages and inter-glacial warming.

Considering the Gulf Stream would not have existed in its current form until the continents joined, this makes a lot of sense to me; but, as I am several years out of school, I will grant there is a chance that this theory may have been changed.

Just my two cents.
oops... that should have read "at a point in the somewhat recent past...."

Sorry.... Been a long night at work and there won't be a chance to sleep for a while....
Still waiting to hear how your tunnels fight global warming.


Tropical Cyclone Urmil is really kickin the South Pacific, Dvorak estimates say a 'hurricane'

When I saw that pic loading of Urmil, I did a double take, I thought there was yet another Atlantic storm out there and I missed it somehow lol.
Scary comparison. This is last year's SST map for Jan 13...



...and this is yesterdays (Jan 13):

Cobly, I'm having trouble making out the land to the west of her. What set of islands is that?
F5 and others, there may be some other ways out of the chicken/egg situation you describe.

If people lived closer to work (or public transportation) they wouldn't be so dependent on cars, thus less dependent on foreign oil etc. And we don't have to wait for engineers to figure out how to build more energy-efficient devices either. This solution does not depend on some vague future state of technology, we can start doing this NOW.

I realize that in much of the country the living patterns don't support this, but just start building communities (that support this energy-efficient living style) in the fastest-growing parts of the country and there will be a positive impact.
Not to change the subject, but has anyone looked at Dr. Master's map of Oklahoma lately? It's updating itself. The areas that showed 99 days without rain yesterday are showing 100 days today. Amazing that it can do that. Now we just need a big rianstorm to move through there and watch those numbers tumble!
Those are some interesting maps there Colby. However, I don't know what's so scary about them. The west and central Caribbean are slightly warmer this year then last with a bit of extension north. Last year it was the opposite. The mid-Atlantic and eastern Caribbean were very warm and extended farther north with the rest of the Caribbean and gulf of Mexico a little cooler.
Does anyone see an end to this winter of NO WINTER? We have had little or no snowfall in S/E Michigan since early December and temperatures in the high 30's to low 50's. This has also been the case in the northern part of the state. I am not seeing any end to this and just wonder if anyone has any info that might indicate when or if we'll have a winter. My ski eguipment is gathering dust. Thanks!
223. Inyo
Theboldman, i live in Pasadena and work in the San Gabriel Mountains. Incidentally, most people believe the average snow level up there has risen significantly in the last 50 years. i know it's kind of irrelevant since most people agree the earth is warming.. it's just bad for snowboarding, and for the pines.

FtWalton, i too have heard that the climate changed significantly when North and South America joined. It makes sense that it would, as this would greatly effect the thermohaline (current) circulation. Btw, I'm not saying that the carbon getting trapped is the main reason for the general cooling, i just think it may be a factor. Another factor is the positioning of Antarctaca directly over the South Pole (it used to be in temperate areas) which allows for the buildup of snow, which cools temperatures. So there are a lot of factors involved, indeed.

I'm guilty of burning fossil fuels like anyone else here, so i dont want to be a hypocrite and am not saying that everyone who does so is evil or anything. However, it really bothers me that we as a country refuse to stop altering the atmosphere of the climate significantly just beacuse it might cost us some money. No one is suggesting that the flow of Oil to the US be halted, that would result in a big, unpleasant war anyway. All people are suggesting (at least the reasonable ones) is that we should be putting more effort into developing alternatives than we currently are.


Let's see... an oil president with oil money doesn't want to increase funding in technology that would make oil less necessary, and thus make his stocks decrease in value. If you are looking for a 'conspiracy', it shouldnt be too hard to find there... even if i were a Republican i would have to question that.
phillyfan,
Unfortunately it looks as though much of OK will keep those high numbers on Dr. Masters's map. However, for us in Texas, we may finally see some rain, even on consecutive days!
225. F5
Oh c'mon Inyo...You can't possibly believe the because Bush once partially owned some oil companies that he refuses to fund alternate technologies. The truth is that the president doesn't fund any research. Congress allocates funds. All the president can do is refuse to release the money and that has not happened. In addition, the president prefers, and I completely agree, that private industry should be the ones funding the investment, not the federal government.

Also, you state that we refuse to stop altering the atmosphere of the climate significantly...Again, what proof is there that we are significantly alternating the climate? Absolutely none. It may be happening, but there is no proof that human activity is the cause. Therefore, to demand that we develop alternate technologies to stop doing something we have no idea if it will have any effect is not a good use of our resources. And as I said in an earlier post, if we want to develop alternatives, there are plenty of other reasons for doing so that are much more significant than an unproven hypothesis that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

As with anything, until the benefits outweigh the costs, you are unlikely to see anything more than cursory investment in research. I read today that Honda is still betting on fuel-cell technology, and frankly, so am I. I'm not into the bio-diesel thing and hybrids just change the source of part of the pollution issue from cars to power plants.
226. F5
observer12, I guess it depends on where you are at. They have lowered the rain chance on Monday to 20% and eliminated the chance on Tuesday, at least for the D/FW area. Sounds like once again, the dry-line will push through and clear out the moisture before the cold-front can arrive, so there will be nothing left to work with. That seems to be the pattern we are stuck in.
227. F5
Quick question...If we are in a global warming phase (and I don't think anyone would disagree with that), why are we entering into a La Nina phase in the Pacific? If the atmosphere is warming, shouldn't that lead to increased SST's all over? Or is this simply another anomoly that we don't understand and can't model. From a cursory standpoint, you would think that the Pacific would also be warming, which would of course, lead to El Nino conditions, which would of course lower the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin.
228. Inyo
i'm sorry but i just dont think that someone whos family has a huge interest in one industry should be the one deciding whether or not that industry, which definitely causes harmful effects to people, is the one which dominates the world. You can't honestly tell me that you don't believe the President has a huge influence on how research efforts go. Also, you can't deny that he just blew off Kyoto totally. Maybe it WASNT the best for our country, but he didn't try to find a compromise, he just blew it off completely.

I don't agree that private companies should provide the money for all research, at all. That attitude gets you a country like Japan, which invents a lot of neat stuff, yes, but doesn't stand out on the forefront of science for 100 years. Let's face it, most technology we use today was not originally profitable, and was developed either by government-funded science, or by the government-funded military.

By your logic, we should disband the NWS and let 'accu'-weather take over. I know this is extreme, but seriously.

One example... i work for the Forest Service... our particular forest doesnt have much logging, so there isnt industry involvement. However, one of my duties is associated with the vegetation that covers the hills. You can't sell it, it doesnt make anyone money at all. We are doing research to understand it. Why do i do it? beacuse it interests me. is that selfish? perhaps. HOWEVER... if the vegetation dies off, or is replaced by shallow-rooted weeds, then something does happen. The hills collapse in on the city in an increased rate, and much more fires occur. Therefore, someone needs to figure out how to manage the hills so they don't fall on the city. But no oil company is going to pay for that... the government has to, beacuse it is their duty, in our opinion, to help us. A lot of this 'environmental' research, like this, doesnt result in immediate profit. However, look at it this way.. if people in the past understood the importance of keeping wetland ecosystems intact, then New Orleans might not be completely destroyed today, and over 1000 lives lost. I think even hurricanechaser will agree with me on that point... But short-sighted people tore up the wetlands for development, and among other things, oil production. Oil doesnt do us much good when our cities are under water...

As someone who works in the 'environmental/biology' field every day, i can guarantee you that naive environmentalists cause me more strife than you do... another reason we need more research. Well-meaning people planted a bunch of inappropriate pines in the hills above LA, and now they are all dying and catching on fire.

I think increased CO2 emissions are just one among many reasons to reduce oil use. I DO personally believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature, and that we have added to the increased CO2 significantly. Most climatologists, i believe, agree on that point (and no, it doesnt make it true at all, i know).

Hybrids don't change the fuel consumption to power plants.. only purely electric cars do that. hybrids don't actually suck power from the grid from what i have seen, they merely use energy from braking to power the car at certain times. Good technology, useful in fuel conservation, but not an alternate fuel, just an efficiency issue. Although ethanol is bunk, i don't think Biodiesel is. It isn't going to power the whole country, but i think it can be a big part of it, while supporting the Midwest's economy. but that is yet to be seen.

Also, you state that we refuse to stop altering the atmosphere of the climate significantly.

i think what i said, or at least what i meant to say, is that we are altering the ATMOSPHERE significantly. and no one who's been to LA will deny that. how that effects the climate... well, we all know how we all stand on that.

Quick question...If we are in a global warming phase (and I don't think anyone would disagree with that), why are we entering into a La Nina phase in the Pacific? If the atmosphere is warming, shouldn't that lead to increased SST's all over? Or is this simply another anomoly that we don't understand and can't model. From a cursory standpoint, you would think that the Pacific would also be warming, which would of course, lead to El Nino conditions, which would of course lower the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin

Global warming just means more energy from the sun will stay in the atmosphere.. it doesnt inherently mean all water temperatures will warm. A lot of people (i dont have sources offhand but from what ive read...) believe that net warming on the earth will just increase the intensity of all cycles. Since the ENSO cycle is ultimately driven by heat, more heat may just make the 'pendulum' swing more widely... meaning that we will have more intense La Nina as well as El Nino conditions. There isn't a uniform warming throughout the Earth, as currents and jet streams move around, different areas will be affected differently.

ENSO (el nino southern oscillation) is still poorly understood. I have heard some people speculate that until the last century, it was a very slow cycle, taking maybe 50 years for an El Nino to occur. There really isn't any way to say for sure, though.
229. Inyo
wow, that was long... sorry
Allow me to make one, highly amusing, point here:

Michael Moore owns Haliburton stock.
If I could butt in for just a second, the latest computer models show a chance of a dangerous tornado outbreak in the south Tuesday.
hey tornadoty how are you i may be seeing some sever weather today to in the valley and foothills


if any one update on sever weather this post it in my blog and it can any this like hail low snow high winds and so on

hey ever one whats up can not stay for long
Long but informative Inyo~

Several have mentioned that the planet has been warmer, therefore we shouldn't worry about it. ~though the majority of studies are showing this is the warmest in at least 2000 years. I set out to find info on the warmest period for earth, since noone really mentioned how hot things get before they get cold again, openminded, figured i'd look it up. Lastnight, I read an article about around 3 bil years ago being one of the hottest points in history. Basically decribed below by Inyo, adding that the CO2 was higher than now, though Methane wasn't measured in samples, some suspect it was there. Basically a really bad case of greenhouse effect occured ~ heating the planet to around 157F(no mention of some hot spot location or average for the planet). Appears all the vegatation died globally though. That's why the CO2 mixed with the sediment from the mountains & land were carried to the sea which was considerably higher. There was no polar ice caps. & there was a mention of land masses moving around, colliding, erupions, more landslides, earth to the sea, til things settled & enough CO2 was removed from the air. Then the world iced back over, well not around the tropics. But before it did it sounded like no enviroment for humans. Does anyone have any other info on how hot it has gotton in the past? Also this thing of the gulf stream slowing is gonna cool europe right down before it gets too hot thing, anyone noticed even though the gulf stream has been slowing for 20 years now europe is getting hotter?
234. TPaul
Obviously the biggest thing that hurts Bush in regards to his energy policy is the secrete meeting that were held by Cheney with a number of leaders from the energy sector. Now these meetings may have been totally legal and their reason for keeping them secret might be reasonable but it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. With that said, its not the President or Congress that drives energy policy, it we the consumers. Just look at hybrid cars and how they are hitting the market.
235. Inyo
Moore loves Bush, that guy is making him rich!
i ahv updated my blog
237. F5
TPAul,

If CA wasn't requiring a certain pct of hybrid cars, you wouldn't see a single one being built for the US.

http://news.com.com/Turning+up+the+heat+on+hybrid+cars/2100-11389_3-6026076.html?tag=nefd.lede

As is aptly stated in the article, "I hate selling cars at a loss," Nissan Motor and Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn told reporters, saying hybrids were not a profitable proposition. "

Now, the question becomes, can the government force companies to produce products they don't want and lose money on them because of the environment? The answer SHOULD be no. No company should be forced to build and sell products at a loss to conform to government regulations. If they want to have higher CAFE requirements or emission controls, the extra price of which can be passed on to consumers, that's one thing.



238. F5
Inyo,

First off, Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate, not by President Bush, and that occured when Clinton was President, not Bush. Kyoto was unworkable, and could have easily wrecked our economy without providing any proven benefits. Bush's philosophy has been to prod industry to develop their own solutions, which is how it should be, when the cost/benefit is completely unknown.

As for who funds research, I don't want to digress too much but when government funds it, you end up with such an unbelievable amount of waste and reseach into ridiculous items, it's hard to believe. In the end, most inventions/scientific discoveries have been made by individual citizens and/or private companies, not by the government. Mostly, it's because the profit motive drives people to allocate time/money/effort into research in order to derive a profit from it. There has never been a better motivator in the history of humans. And it's not as if government research is so much better than private research. The only real reason it exists is for the most part, the areas in which they study have little or no financial benefit to them, simply because the government is doing the work that private enterprises SHOULD be doing and expending their own money on. Instead, they are letting the US Taxpayers fund the research and then gaining the benefits without the requisite costs. This is economics at its worst. If it is truly something that is a matter of national security, defense, etc., that's one thing. The Constitution requires the Federal government to protect us and therefore it's worthwhile. Otherwise, it should be done in the private sector.

Sorry, got my hybrids and electrics confused.

If by affecting the atmosphere you mean polluting it, then yes, I agree with that. That should be the primary reason why we research alternative energy sources and cleaner emissions, as I've stated several times.

The point about ENSO provides ammunition to what I and others have been saying. There is so much that we don't know, about sources and interactions and how the earth's climate acts/reacts. To make dubious claims that human activity is the primary cause for global warming is complete bunk. We certainly are contributing CO2, methand, and other greenhouse gases, but we have no idea how much of an impact that is making, and there's simply no way whatsoever to know. Anything we do could be the wrong thing. So let's focus on the right reasons to reduce emissions...pollution and reduced dependence on foreign energy sources.
239. Inyo
its a hard question for sure. first of all we should totally do away with the term 'environment' in this issue, i hate that term, it implies some kind of passive surroundings we are trying to preserve. the bottom line is this is for our OWN long term beneifit.
I do think the government needs to play a role in the conversion from a fossil fuel economy. No, i don't know the best way to do this, and i havent heard any great ideas either, but 'do nothing' is also a poor choice in my opinion.
240. Inyo
when government funds it, you end up with such an unbelievable amount of waste and reseach into ridiculous items, it's hard to believe. In the end, most inventions/scientific discoveries have been made by individual citizens and/or private companies, not by the government.

as someone working in a science field, i totally disagree.. at least in the area i work under. under some fields, such as computing, etc, it's probably true. I guess for whatever reason, i just have no faith in corporations or capitalism to do what needs to be done. do i have a better solution? Not really.. but most of what i have seen is corporations detrimentally affecting most people to the beneifit fo a few shareholders.

does government ever fund 'ridiculous', useless research? Sure, on occasion. i still think it is worth it for the beneifits we get out of it in general.

I guess though, since i WORK for the governmnent as opposed to the private sector, and have a science-related job, i am biased.


Bush's philosophy has been to prod industry to develop their own solutions, which is how it should be, when the cost/benefit is completely unknown.


well my thoughts are that bush's philosophy is to accept corporate bribes and let them do whatever they please, but this is getting a bit off topic. simply stated, i strongly dislike bush and am not likely to trust a thing he does, which is outside the realm of this discussion. so i will leave it at that and allow our opinions on that to differ.

There is so much that we don't know, about sources and interactions and how the earth's climate acts/reacts.

yeah, we definitely need a LOT more research. hmm, now where will we find a corporation which will research climate change so we can prepare for changes ahead of time . any volunteers?

To make dubious claims that human activity is the primary cause for global warming is complete bunk.


actually, i agree there. i just believe that to make dubious claims that human activity is NOT the primary cause for global warming is ALSO total bunk. so yes, research is very important. i think most of us can agree that for one reason or another, the climate is nearing or entering a time of potentially rapid change, and we should be ready for it.
F5, the things you say are absolutely rediculous. saying that there wouldnt be a single hybrid car being built for the US is CA wasnt requiring them to be built is absolute garbage. Ever thought that people in california want to take the initiative in conserving natural resourses and taking an initiative in cleaning up the enviroment? And you go on to quote someone saying that hybrid cars are not profitable. Ever heard of making short term sacrifices for long term gains? As oil prices rise durastically in the comming years, you will see the person you quoted saying what a brilliant idea it was to manufacture these cars as half the people in the U.S. will own them. And saying that joining the Kyoto protocol would ruin the economy is absolute garbage. Cutting down emmisions would just make people adapt to the new changes. And it would create jobs as we would begin the shift to cleaner energy and alternitive types of energy. Look at the 'war' we are fighting right now. Hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown down the drain for absolutely nothing. That is hurting the economy, not joining an agreement with the rest of the world which will end up helping us in the long run.
242. Inyo
yeah like i said, i really wonder why so many 'flag waiving' conservatives thinki it would hopelessly cripple our country just to reduce our oil consumption. it sounds like the words of a drug addict when you are trying to take away his crack.
243. Inyo
haha waiving = waving
Skyepony, I don't have an exact temperature, but I know that England used to be able to grow really good grapes- Better in fact than France could at the time- and they have not been able to do so since the start of the little ice age. From what I hear, only 1000 years ago the average temperatures were higher than they are now.

As for the Gulf Stream, just as a guess, could the slowing be allowing it to heat more therefore allowing it to bring more heat to Europe? I freely admit, I haven't had time to research that question yet.
Ha - I think we may be getting somewhere in this protracted discussion!
If can try to sum up what I've taken from peoples' contributions on the various points on the global warming issue:

1) global warming is perceived to be taking place NOW;

2) it is not possible to prove that human activity is causing or contributing to the warming (though climate models suggst it is contributing);

3) it is not possible to prove that human activity is NOT causing or contributing to the warming;

4) there are a number of measures that can be undertaken, such as:
- improving fuel efficiency of our cars and machines;
- better insulate our homes;
- generally reduce air emissions to the extent reasonably possible;
- seek to develop alternative energy sources (solar, wind, biodiesel, etc.);
- planting more trees;

5) these measures are worth doing regardless of where you stand on the issue (and they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions)

6) if human activity IS contributing to global warming, then by the time we have proof (ie. global temperatures higher than ever in the planet's history) we will have wrecked ecosystems, caused untold human hardship, and made significant parts of the planet unliveable;

7) if human activity is NOT contributing to global warming, then all of the fuss is for nothing (but even then the measures in 4) above are worth doing)
Ftwalton, very quickly as I gotta get outa here. The gulf stream brings warm waters up from the carribean warming the east coast and europe.
The American administration is a bit like the American car industry.

When fuel efficiency standards were set years ago, the American car industry hired teams of lawyers and lobbyists to fight the standards being set and to look for loopholes once they were set. The outcome is the the American car industry all but abandoned building efficient cars that people would want to drive and focussed everything on monster gas guzzling minivans, SUVs, vans and trucks. The Japanese and other competitors simply buckled down, met and exceeded the fuel efficiency standards by building better cars. Now that the price of oil is sky high, the American industry (which had the same chance as its foreign competitors to develop better, more efficient cars years ago) is going down the tubes.

The current administration seems little different, ignoring (and in fact arguing against) the issue of taking necessary action to deal with increasing fossil fuel scarcity and costs. This is again allowing foreign competitors to develop the technologies of the future, while America sleeps.
It looks like the southern hemisphere is starting off on an active season too.
Thats exactly what the car industry did. Cars stopped getting better fuel economy ten years ago. But even the Japanese were guilty of pounding out more horsepower to sacrifice fuel economy.

Geo made a car back in the mid 90's that got 44-49mpg. That's the same fuel economy as the new hybrid half electric car thats out now. Somethings wrong there.

Going back even further, the Chevy Sprint back in the mid 80's got up to 50mpg.
251. Inyo
, only 1000 years ago the average temperatures were higher than they are now.

yep! there was a name for it, the local climactic optimum or something like that, i don't remember. At that time, the vikings were sailing all over the arctic exploring and colonizing different places. Then the little ice age hit, and that was, for the most part, the end of the vikings. The little ice age wasnt just in Europe... During the 1600s, Spanish explorers reported that California was bitterly cold and dry, with a climate more like that of Reno... snow commonly dusted the central coast range, the area was locked in a 60 year drought, and what was left of the Salinas River was frozen solid much of the winter.

notice also that the hot period was immediately followed by a cold period. I read a paper a while back on California's recent rainfall records. They found that with the exception of a SLIGHT trend towards wetter conditions, the rainfall has maintained a pretty level average over the last 200 years... HOWEVER, the amount of fluxuation in the system has not. During the late 1800s, an 'extreme' period of both floods and droughts occurred, bringing the wettest year on record and the second driest year on record (the driest in some areas)... This pattern seems to be recurring as the driest year and the second wettest (or wettest, depending on where you are) year on record occurred since 2000.

perhaps global climate is the same way, and instead of 'hot' and 'cold' it is better thought of in 'active' and 'calm' periods. I have no evidence to back this up, it is just a thought.
yes i had thought a 1000 years ago for hottest too, but there's been extensive studies since~
There were vineyards in the north of Britain
There were indeed vineyards in Britain in the 10th and 11th centuries, but only 50 to 60. There are now more than 350 in this country, with some as far north as Leeds.
I had a taste not long ago~delish, also PBS was ran something on the diffent vineyards around there not to long ago
The Vikings went to Greenland
In AD980, Erik the Red and his crew headed from Iceland to Greenland, but it wasn't for the good weather. Erik had been kicked out of Iceland for murder so he took his crew westward where, they were told, they would find land.

The Thames used to freeze over more often
The river's tendency to freeze over frequently in the 16th and 17th centuries is often cited as evidence that the climate used to be more erratic. But, according to the new study, the major cause was the original London Bridge, completed in the 13th century, which had very small spans between its supports for the Thames to run through. The result was that the river was tidal only as far as the bridge, causing the water to freeze over. When the bridge was rebuilt to a different design in the 1820s, the water flowed more easily and therefore became less prone to ice.

I've seen many more references "we now believe 2000 years ago" particularily on the more academic sites. The one above pointed out the debunking the best. Though i'm sure it was a nice warm spell 1000 years ago.
Out looking for the hottest time yesterday I happened across this~ Extremely High Horizon Refraction ~ never had heard of this type of global forcasting though appartently it's been around a long time, due to it's simpleness. But then so complex & numerical found it intreging & wanted to share.
hey buster whats this tunnels thing for anyway
Cyclonebuster, I appreciate the elegance of the theoretical solution which the tunnels represent, but I'm concerned that real-world issues will keep this from going anywehere for the foreseeable future.

The thing to do would be to get one up and running on a small scale somewhere (maybe selling it as a research project into a new way to generate electricity), just to demonstrate that it can work. Then observe the effects on SSTs like crazy (probably lots of PhD and Masters' research projects in this), and if they are consistently observable and controlable and PREDICTABLE then one could take the next step and try to set up a larger system in a hurricane-prone area....
snowboy ~ I agree, go electricity first. We went wood, steam, coal, oil, nucular. People are screaming for clean energy sources we don't have to look at. Way more so than those conserned about next seasons SST.
The Thames in Britain froze over then because the little ice age began in 1350 and ended around 1850. In those times occasionally the english channel froze over and people could walk it. European temperatures during that period averaged 6.5F colder than today. The discovery channel has a one hour show on the subject.


was that the weather2k thing they will ban anyone from thart site because someone here said some nasty things about them and they wont accept anyone now
opps my mistake you were tlaking about something else
really 75000 mega watts how in the world would they do that pluss stop hurricanes
cyclonebuster do you have the physics and oceanography background you need to write this up for a journal - if not, you need to find someone...
How do the tunnels curb global warming?
cyclonebuster while I share concerns about harming ecosystems that is no reason for people to refuse to write this up - as an exercise in theoretical physics, fluid dynamics and oceanography it's lovely.

If worst comes to worst, try getting it written up as a Sci Fi short story. Many ideas too brilliant for the scientific community of the day (eg. communications satellites, an idea of Arthur C. Clarke's) got their start there ...
right now it is science fiction, and I suggest any means to get people thinking about this is worth pursuing...
hey cyclonebuster I'm off for tonight - let's pick this back up some other evening...

Hey Snowboy,

I want to begin by stating that my political phiospky has NOTHING to do with my viewpoint of WHAT is causing a warming phase in our global climate.

Secondly, the same can't be said of those like you who continue to make statement demeaning"our current administaration" which causes your views to lose credidibility.

In contrast, I personally don't consider the Earths climate as a political issue and it should never had been made one. No matter how you or anyone TRIES to shape the issue or should I say distort it, no one wants to HURT our environment but some simply DON"T want to spend unnecessary amount of hard earned tax payers dollars that could best be spent building homesless shelters for the thousands of Americans in the country that will freeze to death this winter while all these lobbysists on the global warming issue are trying to politisize this scientific debate and scare the average person who on the surface can understand, "pollution is bad"...oh, didn't realize I am destroying my grandchildrens future"...We need to do something about it NOW!

This propaganda and main stream media circus fueld by erroneous studies which are based on climate models which are not very accurate like the GLDL for climitology where the researchers of such studies used too extreme of CO@ levels, unrealistic scenarios, etc and STILL ONLY got very minimal effects on our climate.

Therefore, I am going to correct you on your misstatements which are an attempt to speak for those like myself to summarize "we are getting somewhere inthis discussion". YOu are trying to say we are getting where you believe it should be. In contrast, I simply want to get to the TRUTH and we DO have plenty of time to do it.

Unfortunstely, a rush to judgement CAN cause more serious problems many of which we have NO idea what they might be. I do believe that we MAY have had a VERY SLIGHT effect on our atmosphere but that would be the case by ANYTHING we do, not simply because we burn fossil fuels.

The only way to keep human from having ZERO affect, although VERY SLIGHT on our planets environment is to get rid of all people, is that in our best interest. This is just a clear unbiased example of how absurd this debate really is. That's why it has been hijacked by political interests groups who want to use this gloom and doom unsubstantiated GUESS (not even able to be consider a basic theory after twenty years of study!), to brainwash and manipulate people with fear mongering tactics to push their agenda.

I get a little frustrated with the distortions of what should ONLY be a look at forecasting weather for future generations without all this WASTED money (yes, lobbysists that are financing it believe it or not as well as those like myself who know its a waste!)for extreme political agendas.

I began my real study into this Global warming issue more than 10 years ago and when I did, I was like most who are simply believing what they hearr and read, Global warming is a bad thing and worse yet, we have caused it. In short, We are destroying the world!

Then, through objectivity (want find much of that in these blogs) and a real background in the field along with using the basic God given common sense called logic that most aren't using, I came to these conclusions which are not as you suggest. Therefore, I would appreciate you from attempting to speak for those like myself who BELIEVE you are WRONG!

If we could simply state FACTS rather than assumptions, we would all be better off. Here's a FACT to start with. It doesn't matter nor would it make any difference if the ratio in the scientific community was 25 to 1 in support that Global warming is directly a result of human activities. The simple TRUTH is that a majority of opinions have no effect on the TRUTH. The same holds true in the other scenario if it was 25 to 1 the other way around.

I am not judging your motives for only you know what they are and I honestly believe they are geniune and that you have bought into the belief we are causing Global warming and you have every right to believe as you wish. On the other hand, you do not have a right to speak on behalf of everyone and try to build a consensus about what is perseived in the hearts and minds of many who are probably to intimidated to post an opinion on here, especially with the name calling, etc. if you are in the miniority of postings on such a subject.

Therefore, I am going to briefly answer your points.

Posted By: snowboy at 12:41 AM GMT on January 15, 2006.

Ha - I think we may be getting somewhere in this protracted discussion!

If can try to sum up what I've taken from peoples' contributions on the various points on the global warming issue:

1) global warming is perceived to be taking place NOW;

Here's the example of building a straw man and then tearing him down...a political tactic at its finest. Common sense dictates that we are getting an AVERAGE (not happening everywhere) SLIGHT warming of the Earth for the 200 year period (actually less and very incomplete)of records (very insignificant period of time for climate variability that usually takes many centuries AT THE VERY LEAST!)

There is undeniable scientific evidence that the EARTH was MUCH WARMER thousands of years ago and this is NOTHING compared to that. Unless you believe that the caveman started this climate change by rubbbing sticks together to provide heat, then you can't blame that on human activities.

Its most important to note that it was followed by global cooling for many centuries (like 5 times the period of record we have for this warming phase tht people like yourself want to blame on human activities). This alternating climate change has been occuring before man set foot on this earth and would do so even if we all left tomorrow. It's absurd to think otherwise. We give ourselves too much credit for controling things we really can't.Our biggest problem is we want to be in control and PRIDE!


2) it is not possible to prove that human activity is causing or contributing to the warming (though climate models suggst it is contributing);

LOL... Since when has a climate model been right for a month long forecast? Now, you somehow think that it can predict a century long event. The Gldl model used in the infamous study that has contributed most heavily to the idea of CO2 levels creating increased hurricane intensity and many more major hurricanes has a poor record forecasting todays storms as they are already occuring two days in advance.

If you actually did work in the scientific field, you would know that MOST modeling is incorrect as are most scientific theories. It goes with the job description. I will once again give you the link that PROVES the models were WRONG because the study used erroneous and unrealistic levels of CO2 and other distorted means to get the desired rsult you hear being reported as evidence which is NOT!


3) it is not possible to prove that human activity is NOT causing or contributing to the warming;

We agree that it is NOT possible to say 100% that humans haven't had some slght and inconsequenal effect on climate change. If so, the ONLY way to stop it is get rid of all people, otherwise it is naive to suggest that eliminating one element that may be unpopular while allowing another that is, would have much effect on the HUGE Natural climate cycle.

While the idea of gueeswork of human activity influencing global temperature increases is ongoing at the expense of hard working tax dollars (most likely unnecesssarily, when it could be better spent on REAL dangers to human life such as cures for our worst diseases like Cancer, heart disease, and Aids,and not these and completely unsubstantiated politically motivated perceived ideas, we have undeniable PROOF of Natural climate variability based upon thousands of years of it occuring without human impact.

Simple objective logic would dictate we are having VERY LITTLE at most and possibly NO IMPACT on this Natural cycle.



4) there are a number of measures that can be undertaken, such as:
- improving fuel efficiency of our cars and machines;
- better insulate our homes;
- generally reduce air emissions to the extent reasonably possible;
- seek to develop alternative energy sources (solar, wind, biodiesel, etc.);
- planting more trees;

This should have NO place in the scientific debate over Global temperature increases which have been very minimal in reality and comparted to past NATURAL cycles.

I believe everyone would have NO problem with taking REASONABLE steps to protect our environment for other good reasons than being manipulated and pressured by gloom and doom consequenses for the entire human race and their grandchildren if they don't!

There wasn't anything I disagreed with in this point except for the fact these reasonable measures are used to say we are destroying our planet by not doing them which is WRONG and unfounded!


5) these measures are worth doing regardless of where you stand on the issue (and they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions)

Reread previous response. BIG WORD..."reasonable", without causing other unnecessary consequences. However, most use the aforementioned to manipulate the Global warming debate by appealing to the suggestion we are adversely affecting our planet for future generations if WE DON'T! Once again, unsubstantiated assumptions.


6) if human activity IS contributing to global warming, then by the time we have proof (ie. global temperatures higher than ever in the planet's history) we will have wrecked ecosystems, caused untold human hardship, and made significant parts of the planet unliveable;

Here is the SCARE TACTICS not only UNPROVABLE but NOT POSSIBLE! We don't have that kind of power and if we didn't change one thing, the Earth would not be affected with such unrealistic consequences. Playing on peoples fears...bad way to substantiate a point...no place in scientific circles!

The big word in your statement was, "IF" which is made much less likely by the SUBSTANTIATED and FACTUAL evidence of Natural climate change cycles where the Earth was MUCH WARMER that it now. I got to go.::) thanks everyone..family issues..sorry.
7) if human activity is NOT contributing to global warming, then all of the fuss is for nothing (but even then the measures in 4) above are worth doing)




277. F5
Trouper415,

No, actually, it's economics, not garbage. Corporations don't produce products in order to lose money. They are producing them because state law in CA requires them to produce a certain percentage of electric and/or hybrid vehicles. Regardless of whether a few people want them or not, they aren't going to make them without being forced because even the few people who want them are not going to be willing to pay the true cost of production of these vehicles. In essence, every single person who buys a car from a manufacturer of hybrid or electric vehicles is paying to subsidize the manufacture of these vehicles.

I make sacrifices every day. I'd love to go out and buy all the things that I ever wanted, but instead, I save my money for the future or for my kids future. Yes, I know all about sacrificing. Maybe not in the same way that the very poor do without, but everything is relative. But again, corporations don't do things for the good of consumers. They do things that are good for their bottom line. Period. Given that corporations are essentially beholden to the short-term ratings of Wall Street, they are as far away from making what you term "short-term" sacrifices as they can possibly be.

You completely underestimate the ability of Americans to cope with short and long term irritants like high oil prices. You may hear them complain about 2.50/gallon of gas, but they don't change their driving habits, filling up the tank on the ole Suburban and driving it everywhere. Are you even from the US? If you are, you must be living in a different reality than I am.

As for Kyoto, you couldn't be more wrong.

Economic hardship
Nearly every study projects economic harm to the strong U.S. economy if the Kyoto Protocol enters into force. These are some examples.

DOE Argonne National Lab concluded policy restrictions on six energy intensive industries chemicals, petroleum refining, paper, iron and steel, aluminum and cement -- in developed countries, but not in their less developed trading partners, would result in significant adverse impact. The main effect would be to redistribute output, employment and emissions from developed countries to developing countries that are not required to participate.

WEFA, Inc. estimated the Kyoto Protocol will result in ...Total annual output reduction of $300 billion or $2,700 per family ...Loss of more than 2.4 million jobs ...A competitive advantage for advanced developing countries that are not required to participate ...Sharply higher prices for gasoline (65 cents per gallon) and gas and electricity (double).

Charles River Associates estimated the Protocol will cause price increases for natural gas (46%), electricity (23%) and heating oil (45%). Energy consumption will need to be reduced by about 30%.

CONSAD Research estimated that by the year 2010, more than 3.5 million jobs will be lost, mostly in the aluminum, chemicals, mining, paper, petroleum and steel industries. CONSAD estimated a loss of $359 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Energy prices would rise by 59% causing an $87 billion reduction in disposable income, or $875 per household.

As for creating new jobs, no, sorry. At best, there will be a transfer of employment, but not new employment. And it's unlikely that these "new" jobs will cover all the loss of jobs mentioned in the studies above.

As for the war, I'm not going there. That is a political discussion, not a weather related discussion.

279. F5
I would love to post all the quotes from the following page, but the post would simply be too large. Here is the link and are few of the quotes..

Link

Since atmosphere-surface interactions involve complex feedbacks, it becomes impossible to predict accurately future climate. This suggests that the scientific community might be overstating the certainty of (their predictions) to other researchers and policy makers. Dr. Roger Pielke, Colorado State University/NCAR, Presentation to the American Geophysical Union, Jan. 10, 2000.

There can be no best guess the future is inherently unpredictable and views will differ on which scenarios will be more likely. Draft 3rd IPCC Report, in New Scientist, Sept. 16, 1999.

"Predicting regional climate variations 100 years out is not something any scientist would say we are able to do." Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama-Huntsville, New York Times, June 30, 1999.

"This may be a shock to many people who assume we know adequately what going on with the climate, but we don't." Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Feb. 4, 1999.

"We may have to think harder about what's driving the [climate] system on these long time scales. It could be the whole carbon dioxide paradigm is crumbling at least when it comes to explaining very long-term climate change." Thomas Crowley Paleoclimatologist, Texas A&M University, Science Magazine, June 11, 1999.

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to determine future climate change. James E. Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oct. 1998.

Climate Change: Natural Phenomenon or Human Induced?

Most of the important greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide -- occur naturally. While were pumping more of them into the atmosphere, there are natural processes that can remove them, allowing the atmosphere to regain its natural balance. Vincent Gauci, Center for Ecology and Hydrology, Britains Open University, from Discovery.com News, September 10, 2000.

"We're really no closer to attributing (global warming since the 19th century) to anything in particular. I think if anything, it is a little bit more uncertain that it was last time [during the 1995 IPCC report]." Dr. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, commenting on 2000 Draft IPCC Report, in Washington Post, April 18, 2000.

"If land-use change is as important on the climate system as our results suggest, there is a large uncertainty in the future climate, since there is no evidence that we can accurately predict the future landscape...Since the landscape and other atmosphere-surface interactions involve complex, non-linear feedbacks, it becomes impossible to predict future climate accurately...This suggests that the scientific community might be overstating the certainty of global climate change." Prof. Roger Pielke Sr., atmospheric sciences, Colorado State University, in Denver Post, Jan. 15, 2000.

"Experts have insufficient knowledge of the magnitude of natural climatic variations, especially solar radiation, to gauge how large the human impact is." Dr. Michael Schlesinger, University of Illinois Climatologist, in The New York Times, June 29,1999.

There are many more quotes on the site. I know these won't sit well with the sky is falling types. You'll likely dismiss them or state they were taken out of context, or make up some other excuse why all of these scientists, many of them renowned in their fields, all state that either it's impossible to tell if human activity is a primary driver in global warming of that human activity is negligible with regards to global warming.
280. F5
Hurricanechaser, nice to see you back in the discussion. Your voice is needed to bring logic and sense back into the discussion. I am not nearly as learned as you on the subject. I have/continue to read a number of articles on the subject when I have time, but I am no scholar. I just try to use my common sense and glean what I can from all the studies and reports. It's not easy sifting through all the garbage, so it's nice to have someone who actually is in the field sharing his opinion as well.

Thanks
282. Inyo
this tunnel guy is just over the top. everyone already heard your thoughts on this, in fact, i thought they had already created such a device in Hawaii. however, meddling with the temperature of sea water over a large area sounds like risky business espescially recent studies have found strong links between cold water and drought. You think Europe hates us now for our CO2 output? Imagine if we also throw them into a severe drought! also, if you did somehow manage to significantly decrease the Atlantic hurricane season, you'd get drought along the gulf coast as well, and possibly the Southwest.

As for global warming.. i have more than a few views on all this political stuff, but i will hold off for the interest of keeping the focus. I still think hurricane chaser is a little silly with his media conspiricies and evil left wing agendas... but my main question is how he thinks our affect on the atmosphere is 'slight'. It was my understanding that the CO2 rise is actually very significant.

i know this is thrown around everywhere



but i just want to ask hurricanechaser this: you do agree that CO2 in general has a warming effect on the earth's temperatures, right? And no one can deny that its concentration is increasing. so on the most basic level, something that makes the earth warmer is more abundant than it used to be. we don't know how important CO2 is compared to some other factors but it does seem to make a difference to me.

i was also disappointed that hurricanechaser didn't respond to my post because although i don't agree much with him politically, i do think he has some good views on how the climate works... and besides, most of the people i am around tend to have the same views as me, so it is good to see the logic behind what these other people are thinking.
Something to note - that graph is a bit deceptive. It makes it, visually, look like CO2 has quadrupled or more, when in fact its maybe a 20% increase.
While the OTEC idea seems great in a small scale environement, I can see ramifications if it were used to attempt to control the Gulf Stream.

You also have to remember that the Gulf Stream and the Gulf are HUGE, HUGE body's of water, and that the cost to try to signifigantly regulate their temperature would be almost impossible. It seems to me that if man could come up with this idea for water, that we would have already learned how to control the atomosphere and its weather environment. After all, thermodynamics applys to the atmosphere as well as the Oceans.

This "tunnel" idea reminds me of an idea of building a huge 5 mile tall wall, from the Mexican border, north to Canada, along the Rockies, to protect the plains states from the Severe Thunderstorms and tornados. Sounds like a great idea, and if it worked, then do you think that there would be enough precipitation for the plains to continue to produce food? Or would we simply trade one natural disaster (tornados) for a different one (Drought)?

Then you would say, well they could be on only for hurricanes, then you lose all viability for them to produce power year around.

Remember that Hurricanes are natures heat pump. They naturally cool the oceans surface, and my guess is that they are a natural phenominon(sp?) that help to regulate SST's the way nature intended. Now you want to interfere with the Gulf Stream, and if us Humans could even begin to actually make a change in the gulf stream, then we know that there would be a climatic change for the Gulf Coast as well as England and such. I was reading an interesting article, which I can't find now, about something called thermohaline.

Link

Now wouldn't your "tunnels" have an overall effect on this?? Yup, and take a look what would happen.

Its my personal opinion that we try to respect nature as much as possible. And this idea of messing with a VERY important current could be devistating.

Hey Inyo,

My response to your rediculous claim.:)

"As for global warming.. i have more than a few views on all this political stuff, but i will hold off for the interest of keeping the focus. I still think hurricane chaser is a little silly with his media conspiricies and evil left wing agendas... but my main question is how he thinks our affect on the atmosphere is 'slight'. It was my understanding that the CO2 rise is actually very significant."

First of all, I never said that the CO2 levels weren't high but that the effect were minimal or possibly even NONEXISTANT on the warming phase we are currently in due to NATURAL climate variability.

Secondly, I said that the warming phase we are in, whether you believe it is directly related to either Natural causes like I do or human activities like Co2...the warming has been SLIGHT and FAR LESS INTENSE than in history past dating thousands of years.

Please try to read my statement accurately..I mean what I say and it is clear what I said..thanks.:)

Furthermore, I never called Liberals Evil as you chose to suggest...I just would say, they are MOST LIKELY wrong!

Thanks, Tony

Here is another fasinating link about the current cirulation, with a graph on the right side about half-way down that deals with the NATURAL climate changing.

Link

I'm sorry, but given this compelling evidence of the true importance of the Gulf Stream with our entire planets weather pattern, I would be against any thing designed to change the temperature or flow of the Gulf stream.

If you were to cool the water in the Stream of in the Gulf enough to deal with a hurricane, then this stuff would most likely happen. I think these are the reasons people don't really listen to your tunnel idea, as if they were strong enought to weaken a MASSIVE hurricane, that type of change would need to be on the scale of something never before done by man, after all, how much "power" does a hurricane become equal too? I remember something insane on the nhc site.

This would change the entire earth weather, and there would be no promises that after you weaken the gulf stream (cool it), that you could get it flowing again. Think about all the tunnels you would need to have a real impact on the STream.

its just a bad idea, plain and simple.
Hey F5,

Thanks for your kind words and you certainly make strong points that are not only logical but legitimate.:)

It's great to see those like yourself who don't buy into the Fear mongering surrounds climate change be brave enough to subject yourself to the attacks I have taken because of my view.:)

I hope you have a great day and thanks so much.:)

Tony


hey hurricanechaser how are you today mail for you so if you get a ch to come back on drop me a e mail thanks
Hey everyone,

I had to go abruptly last night...big time family issues...the dreaded in-laws!

Anyway, I never got a chance to complete my response to Snowboy who I may disagree on his views but STILL respect him personally as we should all do in debating and not resort to name calling.

Here's the link I was speaking of in response to Snowboys comments that I forgot to post.

If short on time...at least read the conclusion...this is my view on ANY global warming trends and hurricanes.:)

I won't be on here for a few days, lots going on but I hope each and everyone has a great weekend.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Link
Hey hurricanechaser, you still there?
Hey everyone,

My previous post got lost somehow.

Anyway, I forgot to post this link below that was the study I was referencing in response to Snowboys statements. I want to clarify that I don't agree with his views about Global warming but I STILL respect him personally.

I simply ask that we all can agree to disagree at times WITHOUT the name calling.

I won't be on here for awhile because my cable company busted a water line directly to our house which caused the County sewer to flood parts of my home. Therefore, I am staying at a hotel until my home is repaired and safe to return...it could be a month.

Therefore, I'm not sure when I can get back on.

Regardless, I want everyone to know how much I appreciate the time each of you invest in sharing your knowledge and thoughts. I will miss you all while I'm away.

Thanks so much.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Tony,

I have another minute..how have you been?
LOL...forgot to post the link...but the lost post returned.:)

Thanks, Tony
Hey David,

you got mail.:)

Thanks,
Tony
Hey Tony (tornadoty),

I'm sorry I missed you, I hope you are doing well.:)

Keep up the great blogging, you are certainly a huge assesst to this community as are many others.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Everyone,

Since this may be my last post for awhile, I wanted to leave you with the following most heartfelt comments.:)

First of all, to the posts left in my blog recently.:)

I want each one of you to know HOW MUCH IT MEANS TO ME PERSONALLY, and thanks for the kind words and the encouragement to keep writing them.

When I do return, I want to thank each personally, there were about 5 new bloggers who posted during my series I hadn't yet met and if you posted in my blog, I apologize for not responding sooner but thanks so much for your thoughtfulness.:)

This is for the past three comments in my blog that I just saw and I didn't want them to miss it.:)

Hey David, Skyepony, and Snowboy,

I greatly appreciate all of your kind comments.:)

Whether we always agree or not, I respect each of your opinions and the individuals who share them (i.e. each of you).

Thanks,
Tony


Trooper, I was in a hurry as well, and maybe I didn't type that very clearly.... I meant I need to some research on whether the slower moving Gulf Stream was bringing more heat to Europe, or if the slower moving current had enough time to radiate off the extra heat it could possibly collect.
300. Inyo
Hurricanechaser, i am glad you post even if i dont agree with you. You still articulate better than most people on this issue, so if i sound contentious, its just me being over-eager to debate things. but that's what makes it fun!

I still don't understand why you think the 15-20% increase in CO2 (which from an environmental standpoint is a HUGE increase) will have a significant effect on the climate. I think you are saying that natural fluxuations can be much greater, and this may be true, but it doesnt seem to negate the fact that human-caused changes could still be severe. Also, if we are on the verge of a rapid natural change, which seems inevitable at some point, doesnt it seem like a 20% increase in greenhouse gas could catylize the change earlier than expected, or make it more severe? We need to be ready as a species to deal with climate change, or ready to die off in large quantities, either way.

Also, i glanced over your blog briefly.. i do agree that a larger problem than just about anything else currently when it comes to hurricanes and floods is just people building in inappropriate areas which should be left as floodplains and swamps. for example, the russian river of California 'flooded' houses AGAIN early this month.. as it has about 50 times in the last 100 years! I don't think a 2-year high water event even QUALIFIES as a flood, just a natural river fluxuation, and these houses should NOT be rebuilt, i don't want to pay for it!

however, on a side note, i don't think the earth is 'slowly dying' as you stated. I think that over time the life on earth is becoming exponentially more complex and diverse, but simply punctuated with extinctions caused by climate, meteors, volcanos, or more recently humans. I think we got plenty of time to go with this planet, just that humans in their current form may not be part of it for that much longer.

cyclonebuster,

Did you see the chart on the right in regards to global warming? Did you see that its a natural process of the planet.

If you upwell and cool the Gulf Stream by 20 degrees, you are going to change the climate of the east coast and the UK.. etc.

It would probably take TRILLIONs of dollars to even move the water you want. Its just unrealistic, and thats why you are having a hard time getting people to support it.

And lets say it is feasible, and it is done. Not only will we control the hurricanes that hit our shores, but it would affect the entire earth, and we would have some control of the weather for the entire world.

Its just not natural, and it has huge repercussions on the environment and the ecosystems.

Its just not a good idea. I agree with HurricaneChaser that the earth natural warming is just that almost entirely natural. I don't think messing with mother nature is a good way to do much of anything. Hurricanes form for a reason, and release latent heat energy for a reason.

Yeah very true SickofDumbQuestions. Its called climate homeostasis.
304. Inyo
i think cooling the southern part of the Gulf Stream would decrase the thermal gradient from south to north that powers it. This would weaken, not strengthen, the gulf stream.

but on the other hand, if we ever get in a war with Europe, it might be fun to try, to send drought and blizzards their way. If we did it in a time of peace we might end up at war with Europe anyway. which would not be a good thing.
Hi Chaser and thanks for the belated response to my post. Good article you provided in your link. Note that the authors do not rule out the possibility of global warming occurring (man-induced or otherwise), just say that it will be very hard to link any increases in hurricane intensity to that warming. I do not disagree. It is very hard to prove ANYTHING scientifically. Think of how long the smoking causing lung cancer debate took.

Nonetheless, we can do our best modelling and we can make empirical observations - and currently both point to the fact that global warming has been occurring since at least the early 1800s. The big question is whether human activity has contributed to that warming. The majority of climatologists think it has, but a vocal minority suggest it hasn't.

Either way, there are sensible measures we can hopefully agree are worth undertaking for their own sake, which would help address any human-induced contributions to the current warming:
- develop more fuel efficient cars and machines;
- develop alternative energy sources (eg. solar, wind, etc);
- insulate our homes better;
- reduce our air emissions of CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases wherever possible;
- plant lots of trees;
- there's lots more but you get the drift.
Hi Chaser,

Just got caught up on your earlier lengthy posts. You're kind of stuck on this issue aren't you, and on somehow proving you're view is correct. I respect your solid experience in the field of meteorology (esp. with respect to hurricanes), but on this issue (climatology and global warming) I just have to disagree with your position.

As for my position, I'm not saying human activity is causing the currently observed global warming but that it's my view that human activity is contributing to it. I have no problem with others having other views. Time will tell on this issue, and with each passing year the effects are becoming harder to ignore.

I was taking climatology courses in the late 1970s, and they pointed to the strong possibility of human activity causing global warming. The argument then was "but there's no sign of global warming occurring". Now that the signs are unmistakeable (just think about the "winter" we're having), the argument is "well, you can't prove human activity is contributing to the observed warming". The problem with this (your) argument is that by the time it can be proven that human activity is contributing to the observed warming (if it is occurring) it will be too late.

So in the meantime (while we're all debating the issue), why wouldn't we at least do what we reasonably can to reduce emissions, improve fuel efficiency, insulate homes better, etc. In the rest of the civilized world these measures are being pursued because they're good things to do anyways, and because if humans are contributing to global warming then these measures will help.

For some bizarre ideological reason, the US administration is however insisting on Americans' rights to drive gas-guzzling cars, live in shoddily built and poorly insulated houses, allow their factories to pollute like crazy (eg. up here in Canada your emissions have killed all aquatic life in thousands of our lakes through acid rain... ), and generally trash the US environment.

The rest of the civilized world is sincerely hoping that Americans will someday wake up to the mess you're making (and which we're also making, though to a lesser extent) and try to join us in reversing the damage... if for no other reason than to give our children a better future and a more liveable planet.
Cyclone, givin the activity of the past hurricane season and the anticipated steadfast season next year. Would you not have to keep these tunnels running constantly or near to during hurricane season? Seems that preperations for and activation would take an extreme amount of time.
Throw in maintenence and all of the other intangebles and it seems you have an extreme task to maintain. As on any machine, the ocean has an extreme adverse action on it's reliability.
Not to mention maintaining structural integrity in the rough gulf stream currents at only a 500 to 700 ft depth.
NHC mentions another cutoff extrotropical low, any thoughts?
atmosweather mail for you next time you come on
314. Inyo
Posted By: cyclonebuster at 9:34 PM GMT on January 15, 2006.
Inyo,
How can warming it slow it down and retuning back to normal slow it down, also? That doesn't make sense.


-sea temperature warming isnt what may be weakening the gulf stream. what may be weakening the gulf stream is changes in salinity caused by melting glaciers and ice fields in northern Canada and especially Greenland.

-it isnt heat itself but heat gradients (it is colder in the north Atlantic than in the Gulf and Caribbean, as you know) which drive the gulf stream. Cold water is heavy, so it sinks in northern latitudes and warm water flows north to take its place... it is very similar to how convection in the atmosphere works, only it is much more stable. (think of the Gulf Stream as a jet stream that doesnt migrate as much due to land masses constricting its flow.) Now, if the southern portion cools while the northern portion stays the same or warms, the temperature difference may weaken the 'convection', and this combined with the changing salinity could cause the jet stream to weaken significantly.

i'm not saying that using those tunnels WOULD do this, i'm saying it MIGHT. Using ocean temperature gradients to generate electricity might be a good idea at some point, but using them to try to tamper with hurricanes or other storms is a reicpe for disaster.
The GFS certainly looks promising for some tropical activity. I'd take at least a TD to end this debate, at least in this blog:) Looks like some bad weather could be heading for the drought area too.
BBC??? NYT??? Nope, no liberal bias there...
Damn...100+ days of drought...they need some rain...badly...
Cyclonebuster your tunnel is 200 feet wide at the most, and the Gulf Stream is 50 miles wide or more. It'll be just a drop in the bucket, a (short-lived) narrow plume of cool water, kind of like a narrow chalk line on a wide sidewalk. It'll have zero effect on a passing hurricane.

I think if he wants to put a bunch all over the gulf stream and other places, which is where cost becomes a huge issue. It would be billions, probably trillions, to build and maintain these.
Seems to me that a certain temperature balance is maintained in the upper and lower sea surfaces to create currents. If you cool the upper waters logically you would have to cool the lower waters equally to maintain that balance. You say that it would return the sea surface temperatures in the Gulf Sream to what they were before but what about the balance of lower temperatures at that same time period?
And now that you are pulling cool waters out of the depths in it's natural cycle, what replaces it and how will that affect the source?
Maybe 10 billion to build, but what about the manpower and maintenience, yearly?
And what happens when you create a larger temperature diffence between the Gulf Stream and surrounding waters?
Ok Cyclone so now that you have an overall lower surface and midlevel temperature, what happens to the lower sea temps? And now that the natural balance between the lower mid and upper levels are out of wack, seems to me that you have effectivly slowed the current becuase the temperature difference was not adjusted at the lower levels. Yes the cooler water eventually falls but not as quickly as you are removing it. And again what replaces the water you are removing and what is the reprocussions at the source? Just a thought but it seems to me that you would eventually warm the gulf stream even more becuase you are bringing cooled waters that were on thier way down, back up to be heated again.
"In fact Hydroelectric power has the least amount of maintenance associated with it of all the ways we generate power"

with fresh water may be, but sea water????

And what about other nations affected by hurricanes in the carribean?

What about the effect this would have on western europe? Even France would go to war if it effected their farmers.
Sorry if I seem a bit dense, here, but what are these tunnels, of which you speak? I've backtracked some, but can't find an explanation. Can someone provide a link to something for me?
Hang on, wasn't it mentioned earlier, that the tunnels would not work, as the force waould not be enought to bring the water up even if it was pushing against just air.
You then suggested pumping the water to the surface.
Generally pumping water uses electricity not creates it.
You would be adding to Global warming as you put it, by needing further power to pump the water.

as you put it

the bottom line is these Tunnels don't work!

Can we stop flogging a dead cat please.
to repeat the earlier post- and if your so sure they work why don't you model them yourself?

Sorry for the long post, but this is hilarious. While looking for information I found another message board where cyclonebuster has been and he found even more resistance there then he did here. Also a person named interloper seems to know much about the principles that cyclonebuster proposes plus more. He claims to be a mechanical engineer very well versed in the area of fluid mechanics. I'd like everyone to read his post about all the flaws in the basic principles of this design. Also, with all these questions about modeling the design, this guy did, and apparently it wasnt to cyclonebuster's approval since he hasnt mentioned it once here. Once again, sorry for the long post. I just felt that this information is incredibly important and really gives us a true engineering view on the plausibility of this idea.


After reading your post again, there's a few things I wanted to clear up.

In reply to:

Understand that pascal's principle applies at the base of the tunnel and Bernoulli's principle applies at the top of the tunnels.


Both principles, if they do indeed apply, will apply everywhere inside and outside the tunnel.

In reply to:

This is what creates the pressure differential within the tunnels.
As long as there is a pressure differential flow occurs.


Flow occurs in the presence of a pressure differential if the driving pressure is enough to overcome the inertia of the fluid, viscous friction effects, and other losses in the tube. Adding heavier cold water to the tunnel will bring the pressure differential back to zero.

In reply to:

It is the current that changes these pressures at both ends and therefore you have flow. Remember what pascal tell us.

Pascal's principle states that the pressure exerted on a fluid is distributed equally throughout the fluid.


...remember that Pascal's principle isn't an absolute law. It's only an observation that can be made in fluids at quasi-equilibrium...

In reply to:

This is what happens at the base of the tunnel. That force (KINETIC ENERGY) is transferred through the whole leangth of the tunnel it does not care about density.



Kinetic energy and force are two very, very different things. Force, as you said, IS transfered through the whole length of the tunnel. Force does not depend on density.

Kinetic energy, however, depends on density very much. Kinetic energy is esseintally the energy stored in an object because of motion. The equation for kinetic energy is 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity, or, simply, 0.5*m*v^2

The mass of a fluid is it's density multiplied by its volume. The equation for the kinetic energy of a fluid is 1/2*density*volume* velocity^2. Like I said, kinetic energy is very dependant on density.

In reply to:

Kinetic energy is transferred instantly to the top.


Absolutely not. You have no guarentee that any kinetic energy will be transfered to the top. If you mean "force" instead of kinetic energy, then this is almost true, except that the process is nowhere near instant. Force is transfered to the top of the tunnel at the speed of sound, which is a far cry from instantaneous.

In reply to:

Once Bernoulli's principle is applied at the top it removes what pascal's principle forced up there and the cycle is on going untill you stop the current.


If you manage to get a pressure differential under the most ideal of circumstances, there will indeed be flow... in this case. The question is, how long will this pressure differential last until the excess weight of the cold water in the tube cancels out the small pressure difference from the current and the entire tube stagnates?

Its an intruiging problem, but a difficult one. I have some computational fluid dynamics software at my disposal, which might yield some insight as to how much pressure the current could generate, if you're really interested in pursuing this problem further. I don't suspect it will be very much.

cyclone,

I modeled a 50 foot (15 meter) duct inserted into a 2m/s uniform flow field, using the density of seawater as 1025 kg/m3. Given that you're talking about a rectangular tunnel with a wide aspect ratio, I modeled in in two dimensions using the narrow dimension as the cross section, figuring that most of the water that goes around the tunnel's mouth would do so by going over or under it.

Because this is a 2D approximation of a 3D problem, there is one major limitation. The solution assumes that the duct is infintely wide, and thus no water is escaping by going around the sides, only over or under. Because you've got an aspect ratio of 1/4, this is a fairly reasonable approximation. In reality, the pressure boost would be a little bit less.

To solve the problem, I used Fluent 6, which is an industry-standard CFD program. Assuming invicid flow (seems reasonable given our Reynolds numbers are on the order of 10^7), the software solves the governing equations in an iterative process. I ran the solution for about 1000 iterations, adapting the mesh twice to smooth out some of the rough spots. Other than that, it converged pretty nicely.

I modeled the duct as if it were sealed, which represents your tunnel just as you point the mouth into the current and none of the seawater has started moving. The pressures during startup will be the highest the tunnel sees, because (to explain it simply) once the water starts moving the current stops running into it so hard.

So the picture below shows the pressure contours around the tunnel mouth at startup. Each colored line is a line of equal pressure, and you can see the strength of the pressure on the colored scale on the left. As you can see, the highest pressure is inside the tunnel, starting right at the mouth, and it's about 2.09x10^3 N/m2.

That's 2090 Pascals, or about 0.3 psi, which isn't much. It would certainly be enough to start a really slow flow, but the temperature effect comes into play pretty quickly.

Just looking at some basic seawater density figures, a cubic meter of seawater at 60F weighs about 5.0kg (11 lbs) more than a cubic meter of seawater at 90F (I think 90F is a little unrealistic for the water's surface temperature, that's like a hot tub).

How far the 0.3psi will push the water column will depend on the actual temperatures, and the temperature gradient of the ocean between the surface and the depth you want the tunnel's mouth at.

If you could dig up some of that information... even something as basic as temperature measurements every 100ft of depth in the geographic area you want to put the tunnel, we could figure out exactly how much pressure you need to drive the flow.

If you're comparing an empty tube to one that's already filled with water, you're compairing apples to oranges.

But I will say this: if you stick an empty tube down through 500 feet warm water at 25C so that the tube's end is just inside a layer of cold water, the warm water above will be producing a gauge pressure of 1518 kPa at the bottom of the tube.

When you open that valve, the cold water rushes in. Let's say the cold water is at 5C. The difference in density is 4.2kg/m3. Because the cold water is heavier, the same amount of pressure will raise it a smaller distance. Based on some quick calculations, the cold water will rise just under 497 feet, which means that looking at the top of the tube sticking out of the water you will notice a three foot difference in water height.

Now, we're not talking about an empty tube. We're talking about one that's full of warm water, and instead of a 1518 kPa pressure difference, we're talking about a 5kPa pressure difference.

5kPa is not a lot of pressure. Atmospheric pressure, for example, is 101kPa. I figured out earlier that at the temperatures you gave me, the cold water weighs 50 Newtons more per cubic meter than warm water. 5kPa will hold up 5000 Newtons per square meter, which means you get 100 meters of additional cold water weight before everything stops.

You either need more pressure or a smaller temperature difference before you can show that this idea has a chance of being technically feasible... which is what a company will want to see before they spend money proving that it can be done.

If you don't believe me, find another mechanical engineer competent in this area of fluid mechanics. I'll even send you the spreadsheet I did my calculations on.




Sorry Palmetto

The tunnels are Busters idea to reduce the SSTs around the Gulf and Eastern Seaboard by using tunnels to bring cold water up from the sea bed to mix with the Gulf stream to cool it down. This in turn stop major hurricanes hit the US, while the upwelling tin the tunnels will create clean electricity.

The bones of contention are:
1) Would the tunnels even work.
2) The effect on the gulf stream and Western Europes climate.
3) If your preventing hurricanes and heat being removed thro the gulf stream isnt the Caribbean just going to get warmer and warmer. Where is the ocean heat going to go?
Upwelling USES energy from a hurricane. A hurricane creates more energy than all the worlds nuclear arsenals in a day.

STOP DISCUSSING THIS! ARGH! Can we get back to *real* weather?!?!
We already discussed this cyclonebuster. He didnt say it was impossible, just that it takes lots on energy because its not a process that naturally wants to occur. It takes some external source of energy like a hurricane to cause upwelling. And we all know that a hurricane can provide lots of energy.
Posted By: ForecasterColby at 7:39 AM PST on January 12, 2006.
The new ENSO report is out, and it's official - La Nina is coming.

O_O 2006 is going to be *insane*

whats up! ForecasterColby 2006 is going to be *insane* what do you mean?this is going to be a bad hurricane year this year and more storm then we had last year
You know... I am just a weather "fan" here, but my input on this whole "global warming" (and I have just spent the better part of the last hour or so reading the whole thread) is this: Back in the early 70's when I was in grade school, I remember that "The New Ice Age" was the hot topic, I remember my Weekly Reader even having a story on how the "the world is getting colder". Just one question? How did we switch from the "coming ice age" to "global warming"?

Idiotic question? Perhaps. To the point? Yes... Why? because while it seems there are some global temperature anamolies in progress as we speak, it seems like there are way too many people on "the earth is doomed" bandwagon. Should we be responsible with the environment? Of course... that's not my point. Should this issue, like any other, be approached with common sense? Of course. From some sides of this debate, common sense is lacking.

And this guy did model it with an industry standard program. ARG!! Just go here and read what this guy said. He knows way more then any of us about the properties and what not that effect this. he is the interloper guy.

LINK.
Has any one seen the Canadian model today, look at the Leewards at 78 hours and beyond
Link
Hi everyone hope everyone is haveing a good day. I beleave Gobal Warming is very real. The weather is going to get very interesting over the next 10 years. I remember when I was young it was only a few people in the science world who thought it was real. Know a good majority do.
Interesting Cregnebaa. The GFS is showing a cut-off low near the Azores is about 96 hours. We'll see if either of these scanarios pan out.
Cape Verde season? No, not yet. It's just some normal ITCZ flare ups. Shear is way too high in the Atltantic right now.
new blog up!
349. Inyo
theres a large upwelling area off the California coast which is one of the reasons the area doesn't generally get hurricans.


it's also the reason the area often goes 5 or 6 months out of the year with no rain (in the summer). It seems that even destructive hurricanes are a small price to pay in exchange for the summer rains that sustain 4/5ths of our country (even the Southwest Monsoon has been linked to Atlantic hurricanes)