Global warming.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
During recent years oil industry profits have reached obscene levels. I can't shake the feeling that their well-oiled (bad pun) friendship with the slimeballs in the White House has been the prime cause of that.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Monk, a hurricane is a rising column of warm air, where the heat comes from is irrelevant, it's a thermal in aviation terms. The column rises until the dew point is reached when it the begins to descend, in doing so it spreads outwards and is then subject to the Coriolis effect and starts to rotate.
The difference between a force four hurricane and a five is the rotational speed.
What causes the difference?
The difference between a force four hurricane and a five is the rotational speed.
What causes the difference?
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
What causes the difference?
Is the answer "Jesus?"
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
I was going to say the difference is "global warming" but I was afraid someone might take me seriously.
Digit. Does it seem reasonable that more heat would cause the column of air to rise faster and higher, and spreads further, thereby increasing the rate in which "make-up" air enters the column, thereby increasing the feedback and narrowing the vortex which increases the rotational velocity? No?
Ok, then, I don't know. Beag?
Digit. Does it seem reasonable that more heat would cause the column of air to rise faster and higher, and spreads further, thereby increasing the rate in which "make-up" air enters the column, thereby increasing the feedback and narrowing the vortex which increases the rotational velocity? No?
Ok, then, I don't know. Beag?
I'm not sure whether it's good or bad Monk but it seems that we are on the same lines. 
Then I had second thoughts, does a force five cover a larger area than a four? Is there a relationship between rotational speed and area?
Then I had another thought, would a faster rotating vortex spread out further, like the spinning skater, and if so surely the rotational speed would then slow?
Now you see why I said these experts always leave me with more questions.
Then I had second thoughts, does a force five cover a larger area than a four? Is there a relationship between rotational speed and area?
Then I had another thought, would a faster rotating vortex spread out further, like the spinning skater, and if so surely the rotational speed would then slow?
Now you see why I said these experts always leave me with more questions.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Digit, in general, I think, we in the U.S. hear alot about hurricanes because they are for us, a fact of life. I am speaking only from hearsay knowledge. I don't believe there is a direct relationship between rotational speed and size. Categories are based on wind speed not size. In general, bigger storms may have more energy and thus have higher ratings, but I don't believe there a necessary relation.
Spinning vortexes do not spread out as speed increases. They tighten. If the energy decreases, they slow down and then the vortex spreads. It is still analagous to the spinning skater except the skater is a gas, not a solid, so the physics is not the same. I can look up references if you like.
Spinning vortexes do not spread out as speed increases. They tighten. If the energy decreases, they slow down and then the vortex spreads. It is still analagous to the spinning skater except the skater is a gas, not a solid, so the physics is not the same. I can look up references if you like.
Digit, try googling hurricanes and you'll see that Wiki has an extensive amount of info. Scroll down to "mechanics" and it discusses where a hurricane derives it's energy from, etc.
I feel pretty certain that someone will post a link to "everything you ever wanted to know about hurricanes" for you though.
Hope this helps.
I feel pretty certain that someone will post a link to "everything you ever wanted to know about hurricanes" for you though.
Hope this helps.
It has nothing to do with global warming, but the oil co.s "obscene" profits are the result of their "obscene" spending.
In 2006 Exxon showed a hair over 10 percent profit. I.E. for every $10.00 they spent, they got back $11.00 and change.
I can do better than that picking mutual funds blindfolded.
Does anyone take into account the employee count at these co.s? And not just them, but all the vendors they have?
If they are taxed to the point that it just doesn’t make sense to do it any more, and sell out to Shell, a Dutch Co. that doesn’t pay U S taxes, how many former employees are going to be looking at foreclose. How many gas stations, foundrys, valve mfgs, grocery stores, banks, etc that depended on that payroll will fold?
Anybody want to buy my Exxon stock? I can do better investing in a co that makes laptop batteries. Is that obscene?
By the way. my opinion on global warming still stands.
Humans just do not have the ability to make a difference. It is just a huge ego trip. (With some politics thrown is for spice.)
I go back to my earth being smoother, in scale, than an orange. If Mt St Helens did more damage to the climate that there entire history of the industrial era, then we, as evil humans, sure haven’t done much. For better or for worse.
The human element in global warming is not yet science. It hasn’t passed the third step of the theory being proved by independent testing. It is a “consensus” by “experts". Experts who make a good living taking grants from the powers that be.
In the 900’s the consensus of the same kind of "experts" was that all the stars and planets revolved around the Earth. That’s the way the powers that be said it should be, so that’s the way it was.
In the 1300’s the consensus was that the Earth was flat. Same reasons.
In 2007 the consensus, of the same type of people, is that humans can effect something so large as the Earth's climate. Show me the proof.
And don’t tell me that since it has happened since the start of the industrial revolution, it must have been caused by the industrial revolution.
Happening after doesn’t mean caused by.
By that argument, I should be King of England.
I came along after Henry VIII.
In 2006 Exxon showed a hair over 10 percent profit. I.E. for every $10.00 they spent, they got back $11.00 and change.
I can do better than that picking mutual funds blindfolded.
Does anyone take into account the employee count at these co.s? And not just them, but all the vendors they have?
If they are taxed to the point that it just doesn’t make sense to do it any more, and sell out to Shell, a Dutch Co. that doesn’t pay U S taxes, how many former employees are going to be looking at foreclose. How many gas stations, foundrys, valve mfgs, grocery stores, banks, etc that depended on that payroll will fold?
Anybody want to buy my Exxon stock? I can do better investing in a co that makes laptop batteries. Is that obscene?
By the way. my opinion on global warming still stands.
Humans just do not have the ability to make a difference. It is just a huge ego trip. (With some politics thrown is for spice.)
I go back to my earth being smoother, in scale, than an orange. If Mt St Helens did more damage to the climate that there entire history of the industrial era, then we, as evil humans, sure haven’t done much. For better or for worse.
The human element in global warming is not yet science. It hasn’t passed the third step of the theory being proved by independent testing. It is a “consensus” by “experts". Experts who make a good living taking grants from the powers that be.
In the 900’s the consensus of the same kind of "experts" was that all the stars and planets revolved around the Earth. That’s the way the powers that be said it should be, so that’s the way it was.
In the 1300’s the consensus was that the Earth was flat. Same reasons.
In 2007 the consensus, of the same type of people, is that humans can effect something so large as the Earth's climate. Show me the proof.
And don’t tell me that since it has happened since the start of the industrial revolution, it must have been caused by the industrial revolution.
Happening after doesn’t mean caused by.
By that argument, I should be King of England.
I came along after Henry VIII.
"I remember when Mt. St. Helens blew its lid, they were saying that it put out more pollutants than the entire industrial revolution to date. And St. Helens, relatively speaking doesn't make a pimple on the earth's allegorical butt. "
Hmmm -
I was living in Portland, Oregon when St. Helens blew its top. I believe that at the end of the day the eruption vaporized slightly over a cubic mile of basalt (solidified magma from previous eruptions, high in silica), a bunch of trees and elk and suchlike, Harry Truman and fifty-odd other souls, and created a bunch of heat. I cleaned the resulting ash out of the gutters on my house - it was about 1/4" deep - and as far as I know have suffered no ill effects from my exposure to date.
How this list adds up to a sum of pollution greater than the entire industrial revolution to date has me baffled. Perhaps someone here can put me on to a published quantitative analysis?
Now. It is interesting to me that as the population of Homo sap. has increased at a geometric (not arithmetic) rate, the populations of all other Orders, Phyla, Genuses (or is that Genii - my Latin is rusty), and species have decreased at a geometric rate. Perhaps there is a correlation here?
Or are we all just members of God's wingless fly collection, as He picks us off and puts us on the windowsill to crawl around for His Amusement?
Put another way, where is the body of evidence that the natural cycle of the planet Earth is producing, independently of Homo sap., the same chemical identity and quantity of industrial pollutants as we are now experiencing, observing and recording?
Observations, anyone?
john
ps
perhaps start a focus group on "organic" dioxins certified by the State of California. Now there's a trend............
Hmmm -
I was living in Portland, Oregon when St. Helens blew its top. I believe that at the end of the day the eruption vaporized slightly over a cubic mile of basalt (solidified magma from previous eruptions, high in silica), a bunch of trees and elk and suchlike, Harry Truman and fifty-odd other souls, and created a bunch of heat. I cleaned the resulting ash out of the gutters on my house - it was about 1/4" deep - and as far as I know have suffered no ill effects from my exposure to date.
How this list adds up to a sum of pollution greater than the entire industrial revolution to date has me baffled. Perhaps someone here can put me on to a published quantitative analysis?
Now. It is interesting to me that as the population of Homo sap. has increased at a geometric (not arithmetic) rate, the populations of all other Orders, Phyla, Genuses (or is that Genii - my Latin is rusty), and species have decreased at a geometric rate. Perhaps there is a correlation here?
Or are we all just members of God's wingless fly collection, as He picks us off and puts us on the windowsill to crawl around for His Amusement?
Put another way, where is the body of evidence that the natural cycle of the planet Earth is producing, independently of Homo sap., the same chemical identity and quantity of industrial pollutants as we are now experiencing, observing and recording?
Observations, anyone?
john
ps
perhaps start a focus group on "organic" dioxins certified by the State of California. Now there's a trend............
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
This quotation was taken from none other than Ronald Reagan. I have scoured the net to find the exact quote to no avail. But hey, the pres wouldn't lie would he?john wrote:How this list adds up to a sum of pollution greater than the entire industrial revolution to date has me baffled. Perhaps someone here can put me on to a published quantitative analysis?
Actually it was Pinataubo which produced the largest single impact on the atmosphere in this century. It was a sulfur dioxide cloud which lowered the earths temperature by 1.3 degrees.
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/data/volcanoes/OFR_97-262/
St. Helens continues to pump up SO2 making it Washington States single biggest polluter. Mankind is still the biggest source of CO2 pollution.
Do you consider CO2 an industrial pollutant?Put another way, where is the body of evidence that the natural cycle of the planet Earth is producing, independently of Homo sap., the same chemical identity and quantity of industrial pollutants as we are now experiencing, observing and recording?
Observations, anyone?
As I said before, most on this thread will not deny that mankind is producing pollution, Co2, and other nasty stuff. The question under debate is what is the actual impact. It sounds impressive to say we generate x million tons of Co2 per year but the correlation between these statistics and GW is disputed.
No comment on the Homo sap. population explosion and the corresponding decline of all other species?
To the detriment of the environment, I might add, as it includes the plant world - which is a natural CO2 "scrubber". And yes, CO2 in my opinion is a major industrial pollutant. Which comes from burning everything you can get your hands on, whether you are a sub-saharan african burning what wood you can scrounge, or a south american burning off rainforest so you can plant soybeans, or (pick your country) firing up another coal burning power plant.
Of course, I believe verbatim the statements of our political leaders, as they have an impeccable record (over the last twenty centuries, worldwide) of just being plain right, every time.
john
To the detriment of the environment, I might add, as it includes the plant world - which is a natural CO2 "scrubber". And yes, CO2 in my opinion is a major industrial pollutant. Which comes from burning everything you can get your hands on, whether you are a sub-saharan african burning what wood you can scrounge, or a south american burning off rainforest so you can plant soybeans, or (pick your country) firing up another coal burning power plant.
Of course, I believe verbatim the statements of our political leaders, as they have an impeccable record (over the last twenty centuries, worldwide) of just being plain right, every time.
john
Political leaders are simply the mouth pieces John of the accepted view of scientists, it's the scintists who keep getting these things wrong. The present 'man is responsible for global warming' mob were telling us we were heading for an ice age a few years ago.
Look at the links that beagle posted earlier on hurricanes, one group says it's due to global warming, another, equally qualified says that isn't so.
Wanna borrow my double headed penny?
Look at the links that beagle posted earlier on hurricanes, one group says it's due to global warming, another, equally qualified says that isn't so.
Wanna borrow my double headed penny?
That is the "It happen after, so it must be caused by" argument.
That is not proof.
I am not accepting the burden of proof.
It is your theory, you have the burden of proof.
I will be out of touch for at least 2 weeks while.
It is minus 4 F with a 15 to 20 minus F wiwnd chill outside my window.
So I am on my way to Puerto Rico as part of a Global Warming evdince collecting expedition. If we find any evidence, we may have to prolong the expedition.
That is not proof.
I am not accepting the burden of proof.
It is your theory, you have the burden of proof.
I will be out of touch for at least 2 weeks while.
It is minus 4 F with a 15 to 20 minus F wiwnd chill outside my window.
So I am on my way to Puerto Rico as part of a Global Warming evdince collecting expedition. If we find any evidence, we may have to prolong the expedition.