×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warmer Oceans linked to Stronger Hurricanes

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the raise-your-hand-if-you-are-shocked dept.

374

linguizic writes "According to Scientific American, global warming could be creating stronger hurricanes: 'Since the 1970s, ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region. Last summer, two studies linked this temperature rise to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

374 comments

This can't be true (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949111)

Global warming is a Liberal Myth. Rush and Sean said so!

Re:This can't be true (2, Insightful)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949428)

Rush and Sean said so!
That much, on any controversial issue, is enough to make me think something is false.

Um. . .Duh? (5, Insightful)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949118)

Didn't we already know this? Was it a total mystery that having a patch of water over which hurricanes generate, say, the Gulf of Mexico, will serve to strengthen them? Was it a total mystery that climate change might bring about nasty consequences?

Ok, well, for some people [whitehouse.gov] it was. :)

Re:Um. . .Duh? (1, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949165)

Well, you may think there's an obvious connection, as do I, but there are still many doubters. The article (which the Slashdot headline, as usual, mischaracterizes) simply reports that there's a little more evidence on one side of the argument.

Of course, it's all irrelevent if you're already convinced that this whole global warming thing is just a fantasy by tree-huggers and Bush-haters (no pun intended).

Re:Um. . .Duh? (3, Insightful)

cluckshot (658931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949262)

The fact of Global Warming isn't really in question. The place is warming up. The real question is why? There are people who take a warming trend to be evidence of human activity etc. There are others who question that. The rise in temperature really is not in doubt.

There is extremely good evidence that the process is substantially if not entirely natural. I know that some will argue against this but there are several very good indicators. The sun has gotten brighter and in particularly it has also been much more electrically active in the last few years. There were 2 massive solar flares only a few days before Hurricans Katriana and Rita flared up. Wilma has a strong match to several solar flares.

I know this ticks off the tree huggers but the process probably is entirely outside human control. Mankind probably has no hope what so ever of stopping or even mitigating the processes. At the same time the Bushies (a religious cult with G W Bush as their God and who live in a Karl Rove induced state of mind.) really cannot excuse off their policy of craping the planet up with their waste.

The Democratic idiots on this issue and the Republican party idiots both need taken to the wood shed and whacked until dead with a 2x4 spiked with 20 penny nails. Since this is unlikely to happen, we are just going to suffer on.

Re:Um. . .Duh? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949169)

There were similar numbers of hurricanes in the decade of the 1890s, even though the global temperature was about 1 deg F cooler.

Hollywood knows. (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949220)

So many people already knew about this that Hollywood had pumped out a cheesy, un-original movie about it over a year ago!

Re:Hollywood knows. (3, Interesting)

g-doo (714869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949309)

It wasn't all cheesy. Scientists really are looking into the possibility that fresh water from melting glaciers might be diluting the ocean's salinity. That makes it increasingly difficult for cooling water to sink and return south towards the poles to pick up more heat. This kind of disruption could cause Europe's climate to cool down. We're already seeing signs that a component of the current system powering the Gulf Stream might be slowing down [soton.ac.uk] . Besides, the subject could use a publicity, and a high profile film provides just that.

Re:Um. . .Duh? (2, Insightful)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949242)

Didn't we already know this? Was it a total mystery that having a patch of water over which hurricanes generate, say, the Gulf of Mexico, will serve to strengthen them? Was it a total mystery that climate change might bring about nasty consequences?

None of that was unknown, no, but they're not logically connected by necessity. Global warming is an overall average temperature increase, and is quite capable of lowering average temperatures in some locations. Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HURRICANES" still strikes me as unlikely, and blaming last season's monsters on it even moreso.

Oh, and just to make things clear--despite what some people like to think the world IS warming, the only question is by how much and how responsible humans are, and even if it's NOT our fault it isn't going to make our lives any better.

Re:Um. . .Duh? (2, Insightful)

hazem (472289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949365)

Global warming is an overall average temperature increase, and is quite capable of lowering average temperatures in some locations.

The problem is that there have been measured increases in ocean temperatures. Hurricanes require energy to keep going (from a site about El Nino, about 81 degrees F). Warmer oceans mean more energy. It's not much of a leap to link stronger hurricanes with warmer oceans.

Other Headline: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949356)

Stupid Republicans Linked to Warmer Oceans

uuber liberal FTW

Known vs. known to idiots (2, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949441)

Well, it was obvious to some of us. But most people are in denial about this stuff. Hell, most people haven't admitted global warming is a problem yet, due to greed or stupidity or plain old laziness, or probably a hundred other reasons.

Uh, isn't this obvious? (1, Insightful)

ChowRiit (939581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949128)

Warmer sea leads to more viscous water, containing more energy. I don't see why it's any suprise...

Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (1, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949249)

"Warmer sea leads to more viscous water, containing more energy. I don't see why it's any suprise..."

Warmer doesn't always mean more vicious storms. Uranus and Jupiter have constant winds over 300 mph (500 km/hr), because they have less energy--there is nothing to slow the winds down or dissipate the storms.

Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (1)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949305)

Um, last time I checked water is pretty viscous. No, you're answer is wrong.
Hurricanes derive their energy from latent heat via condensation. Nothing to do with how viscous water is.

Re:Uh, isn't this obvious? (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949373)

Is that why it sounds different to pour hot water into my coffee cup than cold water?

Prostitute Schedule for Mar. 18 at the MBOT in SF (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949379)

Folks, check out the updated prostitute schedule [fuckedcompany.com] for March 18 at the Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California. The MBOT is the most convenient way for you to buy a blow job, a hand job, and full service (i.e. vaginal sexual intercourse).

I kid you not.

Please establish a hypertext link to this message. Spread the word!

I don't understand... (1, Funny)

saigon_from_europe (741782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949130)

...ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit...
Err... how many hogheads is that?

Re:I don't understand... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949389)

Hogshead is a measure of volume not temperature. If you are talking about volume of water large quantities are traditionally measured in acre feet. None of these measuring systems are really adequate to calculate ocean volumes. A more important number would be how much energy it takes to raise that much surface water by one degree. That would give you some idea how much energy was being added to the hurricanes. One degree doesn't sound like much until you take into account the volume of water involved. I doubt the entire United States uses that much energy in a year and I'm just figuring the Atlantic not all the world's oceans.

enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949412)

to make you want to store a few hog heads

Kyoto (0, Troll)

Beuno (740018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949131)

I wonder how many huracane disasters it will take the US to adopt the Kyoto Protocol [wikipedia.org] they have rejected...

Re:Kyoto (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949152)

It will take the entire state of Florida to be destroyed along with most of the coastal regions of the south. At that point, though, working the Kyoto protocol will be a moot point.

    By the time that happens, it would take massive Carbon Dioxide reclamation systems to attempt to turn back the clock.

Kyoto-Deforestation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949208)

"By the time that happens, it would take massive Carbon Dioxide reclamation systems to attempt to turn back the clock."

Something like a...rain forest?

The data don't support your claim (2, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949171)

Long term statistics [noaa.gov] suggest that the number of hurrican strikes is at a cyclic low. Kyotoists tend to use sensational single incidents to bolster their hysterical, political claims. Kyoto was rejected because it is an economic Jonestown that will do nothing to affect global warming.

Re:The data don't support your claim (2, Insightful)

metalogic (445469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949436)

In what way does the table linked suggest "the number of hurrican strikes is at a cyclic low"? Perhaps you haven't notice that all except the last entry are for 10-years periods, while the last is only for 3?

Re:Kyoto (4, Insightful)

rapierian (608068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949191)

The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless. Everyone would need to sign the Kyoto treaty some 50 times or so to even NOTICE changes in the environment. Secondly, the way the treaty is arranged no one who's signed it is actually meeting the requirements it sets, they're just trading their excess productions in each field with people who do. So why sign a treaty that's economically damaging since it's so useless? The only thing that will reduce our environmental footprint is creating and using cleaner technologies, and the best way to do that is to have as efficient and powerful an economy as possible, but direct it in the ways that we want to.

Re:Kyoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949223)

The Kyoto Protocol wont do anything. I am all for reducing CO2 emissions, but it needs to be a dramatic change, or it's not worth doing anything at all. Reduding CO2 emissions to pre-1990 levels is a good first step I guess, but it's just pushing the issue under the rug. Politicians in the countries that are signees to the treaty get to feel good about "saving the world" by only pumping out 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year instead of 550 billion tons of CO2 per year. Issue is solved, now let's move on to protecting our fossil fuel resources so we can keep burning at 500 billion tons CO2 per year for five centuries.

We either need to be serious about CO2 emissions, or just ignore it entirely. The Kyoto Protocol is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb. There are ways to significantly reduce CO2 emissions - any type of green power (nuclear, solar, wind, whatever your thing is) combined with an electrical/hydrogen oil-replacement, for example - but we aren't doing them. Even the countries that support the Kyoto Protocol aren't doing them, because the changes asked for by the protocol don't require such a radical shift in energy production.

Re:Kyoto (2, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949299)

I wonder how many huracane disasters it will take the US to adopt the Kyoto Protocol they have rejected...

I don't think you get it. Despite right-winger's appearent hatred of Darwin's ideas, they actually embrace dog-eat-dog everyman-for-himself view of things. Their belief is that if nations/people cannot handle and adapt to global warming, it is their own problem and that they "deserve" to parish. This fits nicely into their no-welfare, no gov'mt help, 3rd-world Phd wages and visas, reward the wealthy, let "permiscuous" aides patients die, might-makes-right, etc. approach to things.

The only thing they have not done is openly stated that this is their formal policy (because they would lose the moderate conversatives if they admitted it publicly). They are essentially closet Darwinists. One of their slogans during the last Republican convention was "don't be afraid to compete". Well, don't be afraid to compete in a warm, flooded world.
         

Re:Kyoto (1)

blackdragon7777 (720994) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949391)

I have no clue what republicans you are talking about. George Bush and members of the Senate are the biggest spenders in the history of this country and it's not all to military or homeland security either. They have spent more than even Jimmy Carter. Not to mention it's liberals that have dismissed the ideas of social darwinism. Your arguements don't hold water at all. Besides we will never live to see a warm flooded world (barring an asteroid hitting antarctica). I believe that we will be off of our oil dependencies well before any major change in the earth's environment can happen.

PS. I am not a republican.

Re:Kyoto (2, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949404)

It's amazing how fully you understand the conservative point of view without even asking any of them.

I would say "I don't think you get it" but you already used up that line.

No, I don't fully embrace one 'side' or the other. I think, however, that polarizing dogmatists like you make the discussion worse.

Re:Kyoto (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949308)

One, that does to Crawford, Texas what Katrina did to New Orleans, Missisippi, and elsewhere (assuming George W. Bush is still in charge at that point).

Re:Kyoto (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949372)

One, that does to Crawford, Texas what Katrina did to New Orleans, Missisippi, and elsewhere (assuming George W. Bush is still in charge at that point).

"Still"? He wasn't in charge during the first one ;-)
       

Re:Kyoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949353)

I don't remember the last reason the administration gave. Something along the lines that if global warming exists at all, there isn't much to be done so why throw money down the drain. Not that historically, decisions had anything to do with reasons in this administration. From the outside at least, the perceived reason is they refuse because they can.

You know, it may actually be a boon for contractors (they can export their expertise), the army (they can recruit people that won't go to war), politicians (they can guarantee federal money for reconstruction), the media (they can report hard solid facts about misery you can actually identify with).

Okay, I was sarcastic but so were you. Isn't it easy?

Hopefully, we won't (1)

lheal (86013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949355)

ratify it.

It's a stupid treaty, whose primary beneficiary would be the suits on the carbon exchanges.

Re:Kyoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949442)


Kyoto (Score:5, Insightful)
by Beuno (740018) on Saturday March 18, @03:48PM (#14949131)

I wonder how many huracane disasters it will take the US to adopt the Kyoto Protocol [wikipedia.org] they have rejected...


This gets modded +5?!

Oh, I forogt. The Kyoto Treaty is a religion to Slashdot (and Scientific American).

Wouldn't it be nice? (1, Insightful)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949133)

It sure would be nice if people could discuss science and not politics, especially for something so important. But I'm not holding my breath. Not as bad as evolution debates, I suppose.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (5, Insightful)

saforrest (184929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949184)

It sure would be nice if people could discuss science and not politics, especially for something so important. But I'm not holding my breath.

Uh, is climate change not a political issue? Should we avoid political discussions whenever an issue is "important"? Seems like a strange idea to me.

I think what you mean to say is that we should avoid political discussions that consist of braindead mudslinging (e.g. "Everyone who drives a car is a guilty of ecological genocide!", "If you criticize car culture, you're with the terrorists", etc., etc.).

I think what he means is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949273)

Just a guess, but I think what he really means is

"People should not discuss the real-world implications of scientific discoveries when those implications are damaging to my personal politics."

Re:Wouldn't it be nice? (1)

revery (456516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949279)

It sure would be nice if people could discuss science and not politics

Science and politics are both shaped by a individual's worldview. The problem with your statement isn't so much that you've devalued politics, it's that you've overvalued science.

Statistical Contempt. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949136)

"Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend.'""

Causality,Correlation, nuff said.

What now? (2, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949137)

Granted the fact that, as someone already mentioned, we already knew this, we still don't have a definite explanation as to why the waters are warming up. Environmentalists say global warming thanks to oil. Oleum (latin for oil... it's where the term "Petroleum" comes from) companies say it's a result of excess water in the atmosphere or that it's part of a constant cycle. Each side needs to defend their cred, but one better turn out to be right, because these hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are killing more and more people by the year.

Re:What now? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949288)

Well, water vapor is far and away the most significant greenhouse gas, but there's no obvious way to make it precipitate any faster than it does, unless you want to try orbiting a vast sunshade to reduce the amount of light striking the atmosphere. Occluding an area the size of Texas should do the trick.

-jcr

Re:What now? (2, Interesting)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949416)

Well, maybe we shouldn't be covering the skys with vapor trails from jets. Put less up there, and less would have to come down.

Re:What now? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949363)

Each side needs to defend their cred, but one better turn out to be right, because these hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are killing more and more people by the year.

      That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there are more people to kill, now, would it? Or a shift in population density?

Re:What now? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949429)

Each side needs to defend their cred, but one better turn out to be right, because these hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are killing more and more people by the year.

Why does one or the other side have to be right. There are many positions that can be taken on the issue, and there is and always will be more to learn about it and how we can affect it, if we can at all.

This isn't a 'bipolar' issue with two sides. It's a complex issue that needs to be treated as such. There is more to it than consumers sending contributions to one political body or another. There is more to it than people making 'basic changes' to how we act.

However, there are opportunists all over the place, using the issue for various reasons.

I would like to see more corroboration (1)

linguizic (806996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949142)

This article seems far from conclusive. But it certainly doesn't show evidence of absence in determining whether or not rising sea temperatures are contributing to more deadly hurricanes. I would like to see some more people from the field corroborate (by this I don't mean anecdotal evidence, of which I have plenty myself) this simply because it seems like people are ready to hit the panic button on this matter. The article itself says more work needs to be done:
The link between rising ocean temperatures and overall climate change remains murky because of the overlap between natural cycles and any global warming. "But if you buy the argument that global warming is causing the increase in sea surface temperatures--and everybody seems to be buying this--then it's a pretty small leap to say global warming is causing this increase [in hurricane frequency],"

Hurricanes happen over warm water (1)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949325)

"But it certainly doesn't show evidence of absence in determining whether or not rising sea temperatures are contributing to more deadly hurricanes."

Wikipedia:

"Hurricane aka Tropical Cyclone.
"In meteorology, a tropical cyclone is a storm system with a closed circulation around a center of low pressure, driven by heat energy released as moist air drawn in over warm ocean waters rises and condenses. The name underscores their origin in the tropics and their cyclonic nature. "

hlep me! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949143)

So drunk. Can't get a pizza 'cause the pakistani pizza guy would laugh at me. So fucking hungry and no food.

Re:hlep me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949254)

I see you got your priorities right. Hell, who cares about global warming when you're too shy to go out and get a pizza when drunk...

OMFG!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949145)

IT'S THE APOCOLYPSE!!!

So it was not so wise to invest in Florida :) (2, Insightful)

faramir_fr (831190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949162)

One of the major origin of hurricanes is the ocean temperature. If enough water is above 27C you are likely to see hurricanes poping on the radar. If some still want to believe that it was bad luck/fate/god's vengeance/*pick dump excuse* that braught the south of the USA to the ground... let them do.

This isn't Global Warming (4, Informative)

rapierian (608068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949167)

The Earth is getting warmer currently, but the primary cause of increased ocean temperatures in the atlantic is from the fact that we're entering the warm part of the 50 year cycle. If you want a very good write up of the study check out this:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031606F [tcsdaily.com]

Re:This isn't Global Warming (5, Interesting)

linguizic (806996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949241)

Quote from the SciAm article: "Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted." Though no one can yet claim that the 75 year cycle isn't responsible for Katrina et al, Dr. Curry there seems to think that this new data presents the possibillity that Katrina et al cannot be explained by the Atlantic cycle.

Re:This isn't Global Warming (2, Interesting)

delong (125205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949425)

I think Dr. Curry isn't up on her NAO research. The NAO has a 40-50 year variable decadal pattern. The beginning of the 20th century was a cold pattern, with rapid warming in the 1930s followed by 30 years of warm cycle, followed by another cold period up until the 1990s. The 90s were a sustained cold period with minimal hurricane activity, and now we're cycling into another warm period.

The decadal periods are bookended by monster hurricane cycles. See the 1900 Galveston hurricane (which destroyed Galveston), the 1964 Betsy hurricane (which destroyed New Orleans), and the 2005 Katrina hurricane (ditto). There was a rapid ramp-up in the 1930s, and there appears to be a rapid ramp-up in the 2000's.

Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theorys (-1, Flamebait)

ProtossX (962089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949175)

Seriously when I was 10 its easy to tell kids, oh don't use styraphone to protect global warming, oh recycle!, oh save the rainforests this stuff is brainwashing kids or so young they can't put together their own opinions an schools shove there own agenda down their throat until they believe all these crazy theories especially global warming have no merit on anything thats going on and is even proven false is several parts of the world have had the lowest temperatures of all time an record lows, obviously its not happening and im sick of people theories being taught when theres no 100% proof to brainwash kids with, luckily i've learned the truth 10 years after being brainwashed

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (1)

Are you a NIGGER (850302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949189)

Apparently your school was so busy brainwashing you they never got around to teaching what a run on sentence is.

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (2, Funny)

syntaxglitch (889367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949213)

Well, it's a pity the schools didn't brainwash you into believing in "paragraphs".

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (4, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949271)

I don't know what stypraphone is, byut Styrofoam has little to do with global warming. The CFCs used to expand styrofoam until the mid-1980s deplete ozone in the stratosphere. This causes an increase in UV radiation at ground level, not global warming.

Recycling reduces the energy consumed in industry. On one extreme, aluminum takes huge amounts of energy to smelt from ore, but relatively little to melt and re-cast. On the other, seperating, transporting, and recycling paper products takes slightly more energy than using new material, BUT reduces deforestation, thus preserving the CO2 absorbtion capabilities of the worlds forests.

Global warming is a global phenomenon, and weather patterns are changing over the whole world. There may be some areas that have lower temperatures, but this does not disprove global warming, since the aggregate temperatures are still higher.

I suggest you go back to school and get brainwashed with grammer, critical thinking, composition, the scientific method, the meaning of a scientific theory and hypothesis, but mostly critical thinking.

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949394)

"I suggest you go back to school and get brainwashed with grammer,"


Ha ha ha ha haaa! oh hoh hoho ho hohoooooo ha haha hahahahaaa!!!!!

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949438)

Would it suprise you that I spell Colour colour too? And pronounce about about, not abaaawht.

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (2, Insightful)

Sircus (16869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949341)

How your comment should look:

Seriously, when I was 10, it was easy to tell kids, "Oh, to prevent global warming, don't use Styrofoam", "Oh, recycle!", and "Save the rainforests!". This stuff is brainwashing kids who are so young that they can't form their own opinions. Schools shove their own agenda down the kids' throats until they believe all these crazy theories (especially global warming) which have no merit based upon anything that's going on and (in the case of global warming) has even been proven incorrect in several parts of the world, which have had the lowest temperatures of all time. Obviously global warming's not happening; I'm sick of people teaching theories when there's no proof. Luckily, I've learned the truth, ten years after being brainwashed.
It's cost me 5 minutes to correct this gibberish. Wasted time, perhaps, considering that all I've ended up with is more grammatically correct gibberish. At least I now know two things I didn't before: a) what kind of person believes global warming isn't happening b) how that idiot got re-elected

Re:Sick of schools brainwashing lil kids with theo (1)

SamBeckett (96685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949352)

Looks like you were fortunate and skipped the grammar brainwashing. Thank God!

DUH. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949182)

Like, I only had to read the headline.
All I can say is "DUH".
Why do we even have headlines like this?
Few enough humans are concerned about the ramifications of our actions that even talking about it is pointless. we just need the catastrophe and hopefully we will all die.
damn. didn't think I was going to end that so nhilisitic.

Hmm. Cautious I am. (2, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949183)

I'm cautious reading stories like these. TFA indicates that statistical analysis says the 1 degree warmer water increases hurricane intensity. That makes sense. Now what can they do with that information? Does it help prediction models? Even if we were a totally rational and science-founded world (which we are not), this study shouldn't sway us either way. Obviously we can't directly control ocean temperature. Can anyone quantify changes humanity can make and implement to lower ocean temperature directly? Nope.

Maybe the study answers it, but what does the increased temperature do to other weather? Does it change, speed up, or slow down the oceanic currents and trade winds? Is the water temperature becoming less entropic, with higher temperature but smaller surface area or volume, or more? Is the depth of heating increasing or decreasing? "More hot water means stronger hurricanes" doesn't add much to what we already know.

Obviously more study is warranted before we all go spaztastic.

Re:Hmm. Cautious I am. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949243)

Obviously we can't directly control ocean temperature.

Horse feathers! We've got more than enough ice, due south of Chile, to cool down the ocean right NOW.

I'm already testing the proof-of-concept in a glass of gin & tonic on my desk.

Global warming and hurricanes, whatever. (0, Flamebait)

CronScript (936442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949185)

From TFA:

The link between rising ocean temperatures and overall climate change remains murky because of the overlap between natural cycles and any global warming. "But if you buy the argument that global warming is causing the increase in sea surface temperatures--and everybody seems to be buying this--then it's a pretty small leap to say global warming is causing this increase [in hurricane frequency]," Curry says. Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted."

"and everybody seems to be buying this" Really? Did they happen to discuss this with someone at the National Hurricane Center? See FAQ question G4, Are we getting stronger and more frequent hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones in the last several years? [noaa.gov] Which states that "We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year.".

The science seems good, the assumptions relating to global warming aren't.

Re:Global warming and hurricanes, whatever. (2, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949348)

What, and we can trust the NOAA, after the recent evidence that the administration censors what they say?

Re:Global warming and hurricanes, whatever. (3, Insightful)

barawn (25691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949405)

"We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year.".

Which is what makes this new study actually news.

Note that NOAA is saying "we haven't seen a long-term increase in hurricane intensity".

This study now says "well, now you have, because there is one."

It should also be noted that this study studied all hurricane regions, not just the Atlantic region.

Thanks for the report from 1985 (-1, Troll)

[cx] (181186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949190)

Oh by the way did you know that green house gases create a "filmy" looking horizon?
I read it in a "Science Journal". Although, strangely many US corporations have denied this fact.

On the present note, I can't WAIT for the 2006 storm season to start, living in a hurricane-free region, I enjoy the daily 'theres another one!' programming, the only reason to watch CNN at all.

Watching people divert to their primal instincts within 2-3 days without television and beer made me laugh more than anything, if there was ever a time you took the rattle away from the baby the crying would be endless.

it is a conspiracy from the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949192)

The wind energy harvesters went back in time and arranged for global warming to occur so windmills would become more economical than oil wells.

BRAINDEAD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949224)

How fucking retarded does one have to be to believe that a single degree of Farenheit temperature difference could produce such an increase in storm intensity? Do the thermodynamic calculations on that. That's such a tiny fucking difference that it really cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, make a difference. This is just some politicking motherfucker advancing his pet cause of Global Warming.

Re:BRAINDEAD (1)

tau-lepton (639761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949329)

Alright, calm down, It's going to be O K. Now here's why one degree difference matters, when sea surface temperatures are below 80 degrees Fahrenheit(roughly) hurricanes rarely form. So when the sea surface temperature goes up one degree Fahrenheit this is actually a very big deal. I'm sure that the guys at NOAA are up on their thermodynamics classes.

As far as your theories regarding political motivation, I can tell from your language that you're a God fearing Christian and as such have no political agenda.

if i'm reading this right .. natural cycle my ass (3, Insightful)

atarione (601740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949228)

~~~~ Curry says. Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted." ~~~

as i'm reading this they are saying the storms now are 50% worse than the storms in 1950 (which should have been the high point of storm activity based on natural cycle)... and that the natural cycle would point to natural warming for next 20~years........

I'm honestly starting to wonder if humanity even has time left to get our stuff together or if we've already taken things to far, with our climate impacting activities.

I was reading the other day about artic wild life...seals ..etc that were moving further north.. leaving local indiginous people that had lived in the areas affected for well..... a LONG ASS TIME. for the first time w/out the food recourses to survive as they have for centuries...

human caused global warming is close enough to completely proved for me.

Re:if i'm reading this right .. natural cycle my a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949424)

human caused global warming is close enough to completely proved for me.

I missed that jump in logic. Sure, it is getting warmer. That's because we're coming out of a mini-ice age.

To think that something's proven is like watching the tides for 3 hours and thinking the earth's going to be underwater in a day. Or that humans continue to grow at an inch per year for life.

I have no doubts that humans can affect local area environments, like mog in LA. But on a grand scale like warming the entire planet? I have yet to see any data that directly implicates man in this.

The real disaster is admitting you're wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949235)

The egoistic neocon crowd that built a huge rationalistic edifice around the idea of government sitting around while the world goes to hell, except for strange militaristic adventures which are speeding up the process, would deny our society's role in a thousand Katrina-scale ecological disasters, before giving liberals the gratification of hearing them say "oops, when it came to the big picture I was clueless! Lead me, daddy!"

6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (-1, Flamebait)

spacebird (859789) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949236)

So warm water = more energy. Learned that in 6th grade.
More energy = more potential for hurricanes to grow. Duh.

Yet the article then jumps from there to "It's America's fault for creating all this global warming!!" No real science. Just politics. Why is this even posted on /.?

Re:6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949258)

Yet the article then jumps from there to "It's America's fault for creating all this global warming!!" No real science. Just politics. Why is this even posted on /.?

Because America accounts for 25% of all the world's energy consumption.

Re:6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (1, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949302)

America accounts for 25% of all the world's energy consumption.

That energy is not all consumed by Americans. Much of it is used in manufacturing products and raising food which is in turn exported all over the world.

-jcr

Re:6th Grade Science and Bullshit Politics (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949321)

and the energy used in china, malaysia et al to make products that the US imports has to be factored in as well. I cant remember the last time I saw "made in america" on pretty much anything, except software.

Let's fix it (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949244)

Obviously all the hurricanes are causing the warmer water. If we want to stop this nasty problem of warm water, then all we have to do is stop the hurricanes and then we can go back to freeze-your-dick-off water, like the good ol' days.
         

Re:Let's fix it (1)

tedpearson (910434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949347)

Thank you, that was the answer I was looking for. Just because hot water and hurricanes correlate doesn't mean one necessarily caused the other. There could be another factor that caused both.

Another day, another disaster (4, Funny)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949266)

Oh well, coming on top of famine, drought, peak oil, bird flu, hiv, cancer, global warming, wars, the North Pole melting, earthquakes, resurgent Islam and thermo-nuclear trouble in Iraq - news always available in a newspaper near you - I guess I'll just have to put this one down to yet another paragraph I failed to read at the bottom of the End User's Licence Agreement called life.

doesn't make sense (2, Interesting)

dominator2010 (735220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949270)

I don't have numbers to justify it, but what about everyone complaining about ice caps melting? It would seem to me that warm waters might explain this, but then wouldn't the melting ice cause the ocean to cool? I guess it depends on how much ice is melting and the range of warmer ocean water.

Re:doesn't make sense (2, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949420)

The energy has to go somewhere. If you put an ice-cube in a glass of water, the ice cube will melt and the water will be cooler. But the overall energy in the system will be the same (not accounting for heat transferring from the glass to the environment).

To compound the problem of melting ice caps is that the ice caps tend to reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. Ocean water does this less. This means that more sunlight/energy stays in the Earth system - which contributes at least a little to the warming of the whole system.

Must be real hot on Jupiter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949277)

If this is true, it must be real hot on Jupiter....

I can't wait until we get our own red-eye.

There's no PROOF (0, Flamebait)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949296)

There is no *proof* that climate change is real, and even if it was, there's no *proof* that it's human caused.

Now... back to my cigarette. Just let those greenie-commies try to prove that smoking will kill me. Nope - they can't *proove* that neither... damn hippies..

Normal Cycle (0, Troll)

blackdragon7777 (720994) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949346)

This is the normal cycle of hurricanes. Many scientists have studied past hurricanes (dating all the way back to ancient China) and have concluded that this is a normal cycle of increasing hurricane activity and strength. There is little to no effect from global warming. The words global warming are now just used for political gain and have little scientific merit.

Re:Normal Cycle (1)

ProtossX (962089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949408)

I Agree 100% sick of people tying global warming (a completely false theory) with other real things that are going on (increase hurricane sizes/earthquakes) which were being predicted with or without fake global warming theories This isn't even the biggest hurricane ever, there have been far worse disasters then these hurricanes, scientists know this an thats how they knew they would be back, how do u think the dinosaurs died not from a weak hurricane but MASSSIVE disasters we haven't seen nothing like it for 3.5 billion years you can't blame this on global warming its NATURAL for the earth to have horrible disaster it was natural 3.5 billion years ago an its natural now SHUTUP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING JEES

Re:Normal Cycle (3, Insightful)

barawn (25691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949427)

This is the normal cycle of hurricanes.

Are you sure? From the article...

"We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse [in terms of storms]. To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted."


Yes. They do, in fact know about the cycle.

Many scientists have studied past hurricanes

Yah, sure. That doesn't mean these guys are wrong. Scientists, y'know, discover stuff. And while a link hadn't been found before, it's entirely possible that it has been found now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...