so my dad who i recently stated works for ge in the nuclear department making the fuel rods that are in reactor 1 i think he gets daily updates from this website http://www.nei.org/ and through ge themself since he has to make calls daily for giving them help and he says that we shouldnt be worry what so ever. and this is coming from a guy who is basically the head inspector of the fuel rods before they are shipped off and knows so much about them.
I don't watch tv, but i do have the internet so i do know unfortunately that charlie sheen has been banging lines and women, and japan has had a earthquake. It is what it is. But after reading all 11 pages of that post the thing that bothers me is that people were surprised that they didn't see any looters in japan during or after the tradegy. To me it is no surprise at all. Maybe we need a wake up call on who we are and where we are going as americans. Just a little more consciousness of the retarded population we are growing.
Point taken. But 1880 is not long ago at all. Not at all. I am talking about more like 800 A.D. I understand that you can link the fossil fuels etc to increaing temperatures, maybe... But you can only guess what the result would be. You also cannot prove that the ice caps are melting faster in the time of 1880-2011 then they were in the times 880-1011... There is no evidence that the ice caps were not melting JUST as fast, if not faster... There is no proof that the earth's atmosphere was increasing and decreasing in paterns 500 years ago. Not scientific data (to my knowledge) has shown proof of any of that. There is no other periods to match data with.. The scientists are saying that in 1980-2010 the temperatures increased substantially more than they did between 1920-1950.... You would have to map this past 120 years against other 120 year periods throughout the last few thousand years to get any solid data. Which we cannot gather. You have to rely on fossilized materials and carbon dating etc, which all covers a period far too long beofre now. There is too much of a gap and I dont beleive we have accurate data over the last 100 year period. There is no bench mark to measure that against... The earths climate over the past 500 years could have been influenced more by one Volcanic erruption that all of the fossil fuel emmisions combined. We don't know that, and to flat out say it isnt true would only be speculation, no? I am saying that the "climate changing" that you speak of could be linked to something that changed our atmopshere 1000 years ago, or 500 or 10,000. We could be stuck in a 500 year climate cycle that has been exactly the same for 30,000 years. We dont know that. The seas have risen and fallen in the past. The climate has always changed... It always has... You cannot prove that prior to 1880, the climate was changing at an even more rapid pace, and that fossil emissions actually slowed the process.... I am just saying, I have watched so many debates on television and in the news about all this, and no one, on either side can say "Yes, this is what happened" or "No, this didn't happen", it is all speculation. I have heard far too many logical explanations to why the earth's atmosphere is "warming" when in fact we have had the coldest seasons in recent memory.. and that may mean nothing, but there is not a whole lot of "Global Warming" talk, now its back to the logical "climate change" label, because the climate is changing, which many people think has ALWAYS been the case... I just think that 120 years of data is about 1/10000000000th of a milli-second as far as the earth's life span and history.... I guess my argument in a nutshell would be that in the next 500,000 years it would take for mankind's effects on the climate to actually reach a life threatening level, there very well could be many more catesrophic event's (natural) that would completely throw the climate off axis completely... So, 1000 years from now, the climate change may not matter, there could be volcanic activity, or natural disasters that release more harmful gasses into the atmosphere than mankind ever did.... But who knows... I just know that even on left wind television etc, the climate change advocates never prove their point... There are always counter points to their ideas, and no one knows for sure.
I wonder if you even bothered to read Andrew's post that actually cites the facts in the case you referred to in such a friendly way ... and the findings of international panels on that case. What I've been saying is that there has been a consistent and substantial flow of cash to cast doubt, and you and the "news" programs that you watch have been influenced by them. Issues like this always boil down to money. Who has the most to lose, who has the most to gain. Big oil companies are hauling in 250 billion a year. If you look into those questions in a meaningful way, you may come out with a different opinion. ~Utah
It was actually copied and pasted from a science blog by John Cook. I often encounter the same arguments while discussing the ramifications of AGW. I also have been doing parallel research on the implications biologically from AGW. Needless to say, the information is fresh within my mind. And I feel compelled to explain rationally the clear science behind this issue which will effect us all. The great thing about science is that even if you don't believe in it; it's true.
Volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. A large volcanic eruption such as the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 can have a global cooling effect of 0.1°–0.3°C for several years (Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000). However, mega-eruptions or a series of eruptions can have a cooling effect that take decades to wear off, giving a perceived warming effect. Zielinski 2000 studies past volcanoes, particularly over the past few centuries: Zielinksi concluded "the lack of any climatically effective volcanism in the period 1920s to early 1950s undoubtedly contributed to the overall warm conditions during those decades." (Zielinski 2000). This is confirmed by Hegerl 2003 who found that "early 20th century warming is attributed to a composite of greenhouse warming, an uncertain contribution from solar forcing, and a recovery from a previous period of heavy volcanism". Similarly, Bertrand 1999 found that "the lack of volcanism during the period 1925-1960 could account, at least partly, for the observed warming trend in this period". Bertrand was investigating the effect of solar and volcanic influence on climate and concluded "these are clearly not sufficient to explain the observed 20th century warming and more specifically the warming trend which started at the beginning of the 1970s". In short, a lack of volcanic activity had some part in temperature rise over the first half of the 20th century. However, it has had little to no part in the modern global warming trend that began in the 1970's. On the contrary, relatively frequent volcanic activity in the late 20th century may have masked some of the warming caused by CO2. Doran in his 2009 study confirms the consensus within the Climatological scientific community. 96% of qualified scientists agree on the notion of AGW. There is always going to be a few individuals who do not agree within an issue. But the clear majority implicates humanity in our current warming trends. Your idea about localized temperature fluctuation and an alleged discrediting of AGW is erroneous. Science is clear on the 2009-2010 cooling cycle: Eurasia and North America are experiencing unusually cold conditions. On the other hand, Greenland, eastern Siberia and the Arctic ocean are experiencing unusual warmth. The warmest regions (more than 7° Celsius above average) are over the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Unsurprisingly, sea ice extent was below average in this region. These strong contrasts in temperature are the result of a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. This is caused by opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and mid-latitudes. During a negative phase, pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in mid-latitudes. In December 2009, the Arctic Oscillation index was -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950. Note the blue dot in the bottom right corner representing December 2009. To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. Interestingly, Roger Pielke Sr takes the opposite approach when assessing global temperature in December 2009 as measured by satellites. Despite the regional cold weather, global temperature has not shown a dramatic drop in December, leading Pielke to conclude (with original emphasis included): "This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience." After taking a broader look at global temperature, Pielke is forced to conclude that it's preferable to focus on small pieces of the puzzle than the bigger picture. Better that is, if the global picture isn't giving you the result you're looking for. Data from Stalactites among other sources can clearly show us the temperatures regional and globally from C.E 500 beyond and even earlier through archeological evidence. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2786 http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...a25519faef6fbf7502d6a6411b20bdd8&searchtype=a http://www.skepticalscience.com/December-2009-record-cold-spells.htm
you have inspired the following rant about some of my fellow Americans: Those folks down in N.O. during Katrina displayed the worst characteristics of humanity. The looting of their own neighbors homes and small businesses? How about everyone in the super-dome just waiting around with their hands out? Did anyone see what those people did to that place? ****ting in sinks and huffing gas from golf carts...really?!?And they blame their gov't? No one but themselves to blame. Get off your A55, clean up the mess, and rebuild. Thats what happens when you send someone a check every month just for being worthless. In Japan the world saw an example of what happens when a disaster hits a self sustained country. So far they are doing pretty well. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.
My folks lived in Japan for a few years when my father was stationed there, and they said it's unbelievably safe. No worries at all about crime where ever they went. One incident my mom told me, she had dropped a bill on a busy street and an old man chased her for a couple of blocks just to return it back to her. Order is just in their culture, so I'm sure the act of looting never even crossed their minds even after the Tsunami hit. It's scary when you look back at incidents like Katrina, and how a bunch of people reacted. I think it's a product of how materialistic most of our society has become. When there's an incident like that, it's like mass hysteria, where people just act on their impulses. In that situation, people saw an opportunity to either take things that they can't normally acquire by looting, or to suck the gov't dry for handouts. And what's even more depressing is that it doesn't take a catastrophe to set people off (Los Angeles 1992) like that. On a different note, in the Surfer forums there is a thread about some Fukushima surfers who frequented the breaks near or around the powerplant. Some pictures show perfect loggable waves. According to them the area is now obviously destroyed and will most likely be contaminated/off-limits for decades.
There absolutely has been looting in Japan. As much as during katrina? Who knows. The US media seems to have picked up this meme that the Japanese people are somehow morally superior to all those "thugs" and "gangsters" in New Orleans and is going out of it's way to avoid being objective about this. It is a shame to what the people in Japan are going through, and collectively they have shown tremendous character in the face of adversity. Yes, there may be some bad apples, but just like in New Orleans, MOST of the victims are courageously trying to survive and rebuild together. Now, why the media would willfully ignore reports in Japan about looting while at the same time jumping at the chance to talk about how evil the victims in NO were... i don't know. Maybe it was good for ratings cause many were eating that story up. Here is a link to some articles from Japanese media as well as a youtube video documenting looting... http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/why-no-looting-in-japan-ctd-3.html
Bro, I understand what you are saying, but once again everything you are speaking of studies and data from the last 100 years. So to say my claim is erroneous, is in fact erroneous... You spoke of recent Volcanic emissions. You can tell me all you want about what happened from 1920-1950. In the grand scheme of things, that is a millisecond. I understand what you are arguing, but for you to claim that the "science" that you speak of is in fact absolute, and true is a false claim to me. People argue this all the time. Every day. And no one on either side and ended it with anything definitive. You are rattling off good points, sources and ideas, but that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. And my only argument is that not only do I not understand the world and exactly how it warms and cools itself, but that you do not know that either. Science or no science. You can't tell me ANYTHING valid in 100 year cycles from 1200-1300 AD. or 700-900ad. So you can research all you want in the 20th century and think that you have a definitive end result, but you don't... You are not the first person on this site or any site to argue this point, but you can pull up every other thread and you will still have half of us that disagree with you. I am just saying that you CANNOT prove that this effect was not exactly the same, if not deteriorating at an even fast rate 3000 years ago, or even 1300. Just because data in the past 130 years POINTS to a conclusion, does not prove that it is true. My point is, before Coal Burning, or Oil emissions, the atmosphere as we know it may have been fluctuating on an even greater scale. Unless its 10,000 years old+ and fossilized we don't have footprints of everything... I am not saying that you ARE WRONG, cause i simple do not know that. I am saying that we can all agree that we as humans CANNOT be HELPING.... but I think too many people in the past 10 years have made rash claims on both sides of things, claiming that the world is going to burn if we dont all buy a prius... I am just waiting for the truth. the facts. simplified. I dont want to sit around reading science articles for hours at a time, I just want someone to explain something definitive, that actually makes sense. There have been so many different catastrophic changes that were not caused by animal or human interference. Freezing, scorching. It has all happened before, long before we were ever here. The reason that the atmosphere and climate changes: Sun, and Axis Angles. That is what a lot of people agree with, and I am one of them.
Okay, since that is your logic, that data from thousands of years ago is "accurate", then I will completely agree with you and never argue this topic ever again if you can answer this question and be 100% accurate: What was the temperature on this calendar day, in the midatlantic region that we now call Maryland in the USA, in the year 423 B.C.?? I can tell you the exact temperature in Maryland on any date for the past 50 years.. Easily.. If you can use your science and your exact historical data to tell me the exact temperature in (what we now call) Maryland on (the calendar date) March 22, 423 B.C. Then I will be quite forever on the subject...
One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting. However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting. Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 21 2012), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2012 temperatures will be colder than its July 2012 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect. It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another. Nor do climate models generally produce weather forecasts. Models often run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties (one example: Easterling 2009). This is, incidentally, a technique used by mathematicians to study the Lorenz functions. The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change. Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare. Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future. So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century. Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
"What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" This argument is, perhaps, one of the most common raised by the average person, rather than someone who makes a career out of denying climate change. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical. A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely. For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists. Firstly, the hypothetical natural cycle would have to explain the observed "fingerprints" of greenhouse gas-induced warming. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to discount the direct measurements showing an increased greenhouse effect, other lines of evidence point to anthropogenic causes. For example, the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) is warming, but the levels above, from the stratosphere up, are cooling, as less radiation is escaping out to space. This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion. The only explanation that makes sense is greenhouse gases. What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going down as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust. A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable. However, that's not all the cycle would have to explain. It would also have to tell us why anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not having an effect. Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet. It is indeed possible that multidecadal climate variability, especially cycles originating in the Atlantic, could be contributing to recent warming, particularly in the Arctic. However, the amplitude of the cycles simply can't explain the observed temperature change. Internal variability has always been superimposed on top of global surface temperature trends, but the magnitude - as well as the fingerprints - of current warming clearly indicates that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant factor. Despite all these lines of evidence, many known climatic cycles are often trumpeted to be the real cause, on the Internet and in the media. Many of these cycles have been debunked on Skeptical Science, and all of them either aren't in the warming phases, don't fit the fingerprints, or both. For example, we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence). The "1500-year cycle" that S. Fred Singer attributes warming to is, in fact, a change in distribution of thermal energy between the poles, not a net increase in global temperature, which is what we observe now. The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed), but that increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. This also explains why the 11-year solar cycle could not be causing global warming. ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) help to explain short-term variations, but have no long-term trend, warming or otherwise. Additionally, these cycles simply move thermal energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, and do not change the energy balance of the Earth. As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm All of this data is clearly accessible to the general public. There are some very good climate science books which have been written within the last few years. If you want me to send you the Google books links PM me.
It's 500mph at more than 100sec... easier way to frame tsunami v. wind driven wave is this. A wind driven wave washes ashore but recedes quickly since it is only five to six feet wide (some larger waves may be ten feet wide); when it hits the shore, the force pushing from behind it is not enough to overcome gravity. A tsunami can easily be 30+ feet high but literally miles wide, allowing the waves to travel upwards of 30 miles inland. Another way of looking at a tsunami is as a surge in sea level. When a hurricane hits, its winds drive up the water level where it makes landfall; the surge is well known as the deadliest part of a hurricane. Now, instead of a surge coming in at 10mph, imagine it coming in at 500-600mph, and you will have a tsunami. It is unimaginably powerful.
Ok, 1. I am not a climatologist or atmospheric scientist that could address every point made, and 2. You do make some good points, but: 1. The natural cycle is not a cop-out argument. It's not some arbitrary idea that the Earth warms when it wants to. Milankovitch cycles are based on evidence in ice and ocean core records which go back thousands of years, a much larger data set than we have of modern climate data. Although I will agree that forcings don't necessarily have to be cyclical. Also, I wouldn't characterize this view as one of a pendulum. The dominant Milankovitch cycle (orbital) is 100,000 years of glaciation and 10,000 years of interglacial, hardly a pendulum. 2. I think it is more of a philosophical argument, but who's to say what the time period of a cycle is versus what the time period of what is termed a change? We see warming over the last 25 years, but if 100 years from now that trend is reversed, I don't think it would be called a change. It may differ from a cycle and be a trend, but not a change. I think change implies a sense of permanence. 3. I agree with the concept that anthropogenic emissions have contributed to a period of warming and the observed greenhouse effect in the over the last 50 years, but I don't agree that you can rule out the other cycles entirely and only point to anthropogenic sources. Why can't other cycles such as ENSO or PDO contribute to the warming trends we are seeing. Even if they are short-term cycles and don't affect the energy balance, they can still have an affect the energy distribution. More importantly they can alter the circulations of the ocean including the the thermohaline and NADW circulation. This is of importance because thermohaline and NADW circulation may be the most significant drivers of climate (observed, not change). Who's to say that a small change in the anthropogenic emissions can't be exacerbated by these short-term cycles to create a synergistic effect in the trends observed? 4. There may be anthropogenic fingerprints that are observed, and there may be a disconnect between the changes in amplitude and the observed temperature changes, but again how far back does the data go? I don't believe there is enough of a time slice that it is totally conclusive that anthropogenic emissions are the sole cause of warming. Compared to the core records, the last 50 years is a quick shower. The core records go back 1.3 million years. I think we can glean a lot more from the core data than we can say about the past 50 years. Don't get me wrong there is obviously a contribution to warming, but I think you're more in the right when you say it could be a combination of anthropogenic, and multidecadal cycles. I think it is faulty to look to anthropogenic emissions and rule out everything else. That would be akin to say that they don't exist and therefore are not having an effect on climate. And until there is enough of a prolonged dataset I think it will be difficult to say otherwise. To sum, up I think the observed climate trends are a combination of factors including anthropogenic emissions, but that does not mean they are necessarily the drivers of climate. I think the Milankovitch cycles and the ocean circulations are the 500 pound gorilla powerhouses that drive climate, and the anthropogenic emissions are more of annoying girlfriend. BTW....I realize this has derailed the whole tsunami discussion so I promise no more global warming posts unless we start a new thread.
You have to remember these are people from new orleans we are talking about and zach i can't find any graphs of them online but they were in one of my textbooks. Scientists took ice core samples, figured out the temperature of the air at the time it was trapped, and also measured the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. When there were spikes in CO2 there were spikes in the temperature.
