Global "Warning"
 

I was just watching a documentary on Hurricane Katrina's 135 mph winds, and it was saying that 2005 was the worse hurricane season on record in the North Atlantic. My question is why so many tropical storms now? The only thing that I could think of was global warming. I titled this thread Global "Warning" because I think we're now seeing the warning signs of more weather disasters yet to come, because of global warming.

What about our health? How is global warming effecting our health? I think it will eventually effect our health, but right now I think it's too soon to predict the specifics.

The bottom line is I think it's very much clear that the climate change we're experiencing is a serious threat to our planet that has to be addressed now. The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.

What are your thoughts on global warming? Do you think it's causing much of the climate change we are now experiencing?

I haven't noticed a climate change.

Storms as bad as Katrina have hit the gulf before.

As to the effects or existence of global warming, the jury is out. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have cleaner air, etc. though.

I think the scientists said that war in the Sudan is caused by global warming due to drought and lack of sustainable agriculture.

In fact the malaria build up in humid regions that are not using DTT to sustain the mosquitoes may be due to global warming.

I think the concept of reducing carbon emissions in our atmosphere is going to be a tough pill to swallow. Maybe until the aliens come with flying saucers? ;)

True, but these storms are no longer a once a season thing. There were 28 storms in 2005, but only five grew into hurricanes, one of them reaching Florida. The storms now are far more intense with heavier rainfalls than in the past.

I haven't noticed a climate change either, but people in other countries have.

Thoughts? That it's an issue that needs more attention on an international scale - hopefully things will change in '08 when Bush is gone, and Harper falls.

Is it causing climate change? Yes. Has been for years really, looking at the old cottage records... at the cottage my family would take daily lake temperature and clarity readings (either for fishing or swimming) every summer, and looking at the last 70 years it's easy to see some troubling spikes - aside from that visiting friends in the far north or in the rockies provides ample evidence with changes in weather patterns, the snow belt, permafrost melting, etc. Climate change is amplified the further from the equator one goes, and on the edges of ecosystems so it's been a far sight easier to notice up this way.

Climate change does not necessarily mean only the intensity of a storm... It also means increased aridness, or foul gases that are emitted from the ground that aid in the heating of our planet.

Global warming I thought also meant loss of one of the ionospheres causing more UV and Cosmic rays onto the Earth...

Scientist believe that with the warm weather and heavy rainfalls that the mosquito population will increase. I know Malaria kills about 1 million people each year, but I don't think this is due to global warming, as long as you focus on lowland areas, plus those regions already have a mosquito problem. Some insects that carry deadly diseases may not be able to survive hotter temperatures in the southwestern part of the U.S. anyway. I'm not saying this won't change in the future though. Malaria has risen since the 70s in highland cities, now, how much of that can be tied to temperature increases as opposed to population movement, lapses in mosquito control or the spread of drug resistent parasites pretty much is a matter of debate. I don't think really anyone, including scientists can predict any outbreak or anyone's death by saying this is due to climate change. I do know that good public health relies on a long list of factors, like the availability of doctors, effective medications, clean water, proper sanitation, ect ect. and even with that, people die every year of what should be preventable diseases. I think with global warming the death toll could increase.

I agree. Global warming is related to melted icebergs, wild fires, drought, floods, ect. I can go on and on about all the related problems that are caused by global warming.

What I think we will and are seeing is increase old types of all infections, like a resurgence in smallpox, fungal outbreaks and other vectors we don't want to begin to discuss and don't have enough drugs for...

Also, there is a gross reduction in numerous fish and aquatic animal populations worldwide. You use to get large ton fish, not anymore. From sharks, marlins, etc. We have overfished. Same with tuna that are part of the food chain for other species.

We are going to have a problem within 5 years with some fish and animals...

What Bush/Harper do is basically going to do little/nothing so long as China gets to be exempt from Kyoto.

Some tuna are already considered to be endangered. I can't remember the specific name of the species though, but I know large quantities of it are consumed each year in Japan.

We see it in the salmonids... The babies are not getting to sea and it take 2-3 years to be an adult and they are not coming back...

Now, while the weather in my area is very pretty, it is abnormal when it does not rain in Seattle 9 months out of the year... And while we did have significant snow pack, we will be seeing increased flooding due to thaw and melt...

Who's to say that won't change? There are a lot of troubled spots all over the world from depleted forests to dying reefs. Some areas have more rainfall than normal, and some have less.

Even here, in the United States, excessive carbon emissions add to global warming, and the U.S. has a relatively clean environment.

It won't change until humankind, meaning all of us, find something to do with our carbon emissions... Maybe a loss in food stuffs? Many countries, 2nd and 3rd world ones are switching to ethanol to drive their vehicles. Why the US is so resistant when we generated much of this technology is beyond me...

I dunno, I don't think US has a clean environment to be one of the most richest and industrialized nations in the world... And although, China is catching up quickly and will surpass us in 50 years with money and other things, they are doing more to switch than we are...

Making US back into the stone ages...

Yeah, Seattle's weather is becoming more extreme. Still mild compared to most of the country, but we've been getting more snow in the past few years than I can ever remember growing up here.

I think the U.S. has a cleaner environment than most countries though. Yes, I agree. China is catching up to us with a lot of things, not just in regards to a clean environment.

Yes, ethanol is what we need to switch to. I think this will help dramatically. Turning plants into fuel is a growth industry, and I don't think any biofuel is coming on stronger than ethanol. I think it's imperative that we make the switch ASAP because it burns much more cleanly than ordinary gasoline, plus ethanol obviates the need for a widely used gas additive. It's a toxic substance called MTBE. I'm sure you've heard of this.

It also helps car engines run more smoothly, but the thing about MTBE is, I think it may pollute ground water though, but don't quote me on that.

I don't think global warming will significantly impact the weather in one area in a span of a year (it's more of a gradual thing, right?) but I did notice that this winter was a LOT milder than winters past.

Last year we were still wearing our big coats through March and part of April. Last spring/summer we also saw a lot of unusual rain. It pretty much rained every single day from April - mid August.

The rain was nice, because we definitely needed it, and we only had a handful of days with 100+ degree temps (2006 we had 60+ days in a row of those high temps), but it was definitely the weirdest thing I had seen up here, and I've lived here for awhile.

Except that the Rockies experienced record snowfall and Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. had extremely cold winters.

We also had a milder summer two years ago. I don't think we have anything to indicate a global warming trend, nor can it be shown that human activity could be responsible for such a thing. Mars has global warming for chrissakes.

That had about as much to do with global warming as the dust bowl did.

Katrina was nothing abnormal. Of course I have no scientific abilities, at all, this is just my opinion as someone who has spent his entire life in the deep south.

If Katrina had hit NW FL instead of NOLA, I don't think it would be so incessantly used in these arguments. There have been numerous comparable hurricanes in my lifetime.

I haven't been threatened by a Hurricane in two years though, they've been weaker since 2005.

Yeah... crazy science and environmental people, bunch of no-nothings when it comes to the science and the environment - all hail are glorious politicians! ;)

I could of course say the opposite since interestingly many of those who don't believe in Global Warming/Climate Change believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design - not exactly the hallmarks of rational thought when it comes to science (or reality really).

I dunno, the idea that extreme complexity comes from nothing isn't a hallmark of "rationality" either.

I think global warming from greenhouse gases and other human behavior is a real possibility or a likely reality.

But I think many of the current events pointed to as evidence of global warming are more likely to be the product of long term climate cycles than they are directly attributable to the human policies and behaviors that are frequently pointed to.

I think we'd be better off doing everything we can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, partially because of how they may contribute to global warming, but even more because of the effects in making us less dependent on other countries for energy.

I don't think that the US should generally agree to international protocols that put US business and industry at a relative disadvantage.

I'd rather rely on science than political theory when it comes to understanding our impact on God's creation.

Yes I believe we are, without a shadow of a doubt - simply because animals and nature aren't in the habit of producing complex artificial compounds and gases, compounds and gases that can be directly linked to environmental and climatic shifts and disasters.

Can you provide some links that show this direct link to environment, climatic shifts, and disasters?

I'm not a global warming denier, but I haven't yet been convinced that we've shown these links directly, rather than established the possibility of links and the likelihood of acceleration.

Both Biofuels and Ethanol has pros and cons, from gasoline. Somewhere in the Seattle Times the issue with crude oil is we are about tapped out on the available areas and other areas require destruction of natural forest preserves or are too deep to drill in the ocean.

Aside from the reliance of other countries for our oil, it does not do right by our carbon emissions...

I think Ethanol burning does some things to public health in animals or insects. So, those options need to be weighed.

I have not heard anything yet about biofuels except that it is expensive to process an no one wants to pay $10 per gallon for it although you would be doing it once a month or less.

I would call it climate change and it is global. One impacts the other... We have to get beyond political geographic lines when we talk about "global warming" or "carbon emissions" or hayle, "global health"...

The responsible authorities as well as those learning need to do what they can to live "green" life - no not tree hugging, but to reduce our consumptions because our planet may not be able to sustain it and it is about being good stewards to our planet...

Shine-

I don't think Katrina was normal for NOLA. And even if it I switched to a different area, like the panhandle, those places could not sustain the kinds of damage or winds that Katrina packed... If you believe in that sort of thing, Katrina was the wakeup call for that region or a "pay the piper" kind of thing. NOLA knew in the 60's Betsy and 90's Georges for worst case scenarios what was going to happened and the "powers that be" failed to do anything about it (i.e. knowingly not reclamating the reef area).

Florida in 2004 have 4-8 various hurricanes going left and right across its peninsula. I know because my family lives there. Ever since Andrew, they had a very good action plan. But it took a loss like that for folks to get there crap together... Nearly 10-12 years.

Remember Katrina did not just bitch-slap NOLA, it took out Mississippi and parts of Alabama. So it will be the same for these suffering states.

And I think that selling the issue as good stewardship would get everything so much further than the condemnation and smugness that can creep in about the choices other people are making.

The smugness happens on both sides. It's not just people who condemn SUV drivers with righteous superiority; think about the gleeful way people reacted to Laurie David taking private jets or the electricity used at the Gore's house.

Yeah, I am really not trying to see folks homes from space with all their lights... When was the last electric or nuclear plant built in the US?

I don't think Katrina was abnormal, I was just saying that frequency is not the same as intensity. On the whole, the number of Category 1, 2 and 3 storms have fallen slightly, while the number of Categories 4 and 5 storms have climbed dramatically. Let's go back to the 1970s again. Back then, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes a year worldwide. Since the 90s, the annual number has almost doubled to 18. Overall, the big storms have grown from around 20% to about 35%. That's a big increase. So it's the frequency I was speaking of.

Can we be 100% sure that some of this isn't tied to the degree to which we can/do measure things now versus how we did it in the 1970s?

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

Yes, because it's an average numbers comparison.

Also, if you look at the total number of hurricanes and their power measured by wind speed and duration, it's jumped 50% since the 1970s.

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.

I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...

It sounds dangerous, but if it's perfected I don't think it will be. Yes, this is true to an extent. If we were to use this method right now as we speak, yes, a lot of the additives we currently use in our engines would still have to be used, but that could also possibly change with technology. Hydrogen is a fuel we wouldn't run out of. It's the most abundant element in the universe, and it burns far more cleanly than fossil fuels.

I disagree.

I think the Industrial Revolution has something to do with it. Though it was a great leap forward for mankind, as we began to harness the energy in fossil fuels to power new machinery and generate electricity, the waste matter in the process of doing this helped to trap heat in the planet's atmosphere.

The worst place in FL for a Hurricane to hit is not the panhandle- a storm that causes a surge in Tampa Bay would inundate all of downtown Tampa.
But there is no denying that Global Warming is occuring at a rate that is faster than it would be naturally but the increase is still not substantial.