How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's Monday Morning after Katrina   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's Monday Morning after Katrina

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 09-06-2005 11:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

They say there's no such thing as a stupid question but I may come close with this one - but I'll ask anyway...

The water in the oceans is getting warmer.  A couple of degrees difference can turn a category three hurricane into a category five hurricane.

Global warming causes the icecaps to melt, from my understanding. The icecaps melting into the ocean causes the temperature of the waters to lower, it would seem. Why, then, would the waters in the oceans be getting warmer? Just a little burr...
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


26 posted 09-06-2005 11:30 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I hear ya.  When there's drought and heat waves in coastal areas, best hope there's nothing crossing into the Gulf, since that critter will explode with power.  There have been too many instances of the Gulf waters being a few degrees warmer than 'norm' over the past 100 years.  It comes and goes in cycles, just like darn near everything else in Nature.  In 1943, during the massive media blackout during WWII, there was a 'surprise' hurricane that hit Galveston and Houston causing extensive damage.  It was later found to have entered the Gulf as a Tropical Depression, hit the above average warm waters, and exploded into a Cat 5 which became a Cat 4 when it hit the Texan coastal shelf.  There's been so many hurricanes that were either weak Cat 1's, or lower that exploded upon hitting the Gulf since then, and even before.

Part of the Gulf warming cycle, at least to my mind, deals less with man-made global warming, and more with the tilting of the Earth from 23 degrees to 237 degrees (across the top, not all the way around).  That there is a very long cycle, spanning millenia.  Since the medieval era, average temps have been increasing.  Just look at the clothing styles of the northern European/Briton.  Heavy furs and cloth early on in the summer months to medium weight to light weight as centuries progressed.  'Global Warming' is by no means a new phenomina.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


27 posted 09-07-2005 08:13 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Although I've considered global warming to be somewhat a reason for more violent storms, I've got to say, I'm in agreement with Ali...as nature does work in cycles.  I remember the hords of cold winters and large accumulative snows...which lasted for weeks, months.  Now we get hit by a snow storm, Noreaster...and it's gone within a few days to a week.  The globe is certainly warmer, but I'm certain, unless divine intervention occurs, or a large scale nuclear attack...nature will to, once again, even if not in our lifetime, will find it necessary to pull her fur coat out of the moth balls.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 09-07-2005 05:49 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Global warming causes the icecaps to melt, from my understanding. The icecaps melting into the ocean causes the temperature of the waters to lower, it would seem. Why, then, would the waters in the oceans be getting warmer? Just a little burr...



The polar ice caps are heat sinks.  If you add more heat to the system and the sinks can't sink anymore heat -- what happens?

If you pour hot tea into a glass with 4 ice cubes, and into another glass with 3 ice cubes -- what happens?  As the ice cools the hot tea it absorbs heat until it is completely melted -- reaching the same temperature as the rest of the fluid in the glass.  Obviously the glass that started off with 4 cubes is cooler than the glass that started with 3 cubes.  Both, will continue to change temperature though until they reach the ambient temperature of their surroundings.

So, when the oceans get warmer and the polar caps melt - that means the warmer the oceans get -- the faster they'll get warmer.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (09-07-2005 06:47 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 09-07-2005 07:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As the ice cools the hot tea it absorbs heat until it is completely melted -- reaching the same temperature as the rest of the fluid in the glass.


Ok, but hasn't the temperature of the rest of the fluid in the glass been lowered by the melting of the ice cubes?

(geometry was never my best topic )
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 09-07-2005 07:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Your thermodynamics professor is now wondering if his entire career was wasted?  

The caps are continuously sinking off heat.  The sun is continuously applying heat.  But, as there is less and less ice there is less sinking effect.  The glass with 4 cubes absorbs more heat than the glass with 3 cubes... the temperature IS lowered by the ice... but, what if the ambient temperature were HIGHER than the temperature of either glass after all the ice melts?  Which one warms faster?  The one that's already warmer.

Take a slightly different scenario.  Say you have a tub of water.  At either end you put in ice cubes.  In the middle of the tank you start blasting the water with a blow torch.  What happens to the water?  What happens to the ice?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 09-07-2005 07:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yeah, let's go with that scenario a little further...

Lets add in an active cooling source -- like the effect of outer space and the tilt of the earth to look at Cat's point...

If you have a refrigirant that you're applying at either end of the tub and a blow torch you're hitting the water with in the middle and you reach equilibrium -- what happens if you turn up the torch?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


32 posted 09-07-2005 07:59 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Since most glasses are actually plastic, the water flows out when the blowtorch melts the side of the plastic glass.   Given the extreme temperatures of the blowtorch in relation to the ambient air temperature, the above examples are way extreme.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


33 posted 09-07-2005 09:46 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

It is a wee bit more complicated than bathtubs.  The computer models have error rates in excess of 100% as the number of variables is enormous and generally unknown as to their effects which is why we use such scientific terms as maybe, probably, or likely.  
Do we factor in the positive or negative feedback factors?  Do we this or do we that? Depends a lot on how you want the result to be, and do not for a second believe global warming is not as much politics as it is science.


Thirty years ago we were in a cooling period and facing a minor ice age.  A few years ago, both ice caps were going to melt and the oceans rise to destroy all coastal plains.

Now the Antartic is going to have increased ice and snow and the Arctic is going to melt as the increase in warmth will create more moisture, ie snow.  

By the way, the predominate green house gas is by far water vapor.  Do clouds increase or decrease the greenhouse effect?  You can argue both ways.  

What effect do the wind currents have?  What effects do natural events have?
What effect does deforestation have?  What effects do sun spots have?  What effect does modernization have?  What effect does....  The temperature today in New York City is higher than fifty years ago just be virtue of the number of buildings and people.

If we believed the consensus in the sixties, there would be no trees left on earth as they would have all died as the result of acid rain.

But then we wouldn't be here because of the population explosion.  Wait, they used the wrong model. oops.  At least millions of children aren't dying needlessly of malaria because of a consensus that DDT is a dangerous pesticide...  ooops...

The IPCC was primarily a political document and not a scientific document.

But I guess if you are skeptical of the doomsday projections of global warming, you are a crackpot.  If anyone says they can say what the effects of global warming are going to be without the proviso this is a maybe, possible, or even at best probable,and they are a scientist, I would say it is maybe possible or even probable they are getting funding from some source that is pro-global warming.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


34 posted 09-07-2005 10:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

It's possible Tim, that you meant to post that response on a different thread.  Or not.

However.  In science, not entirely unlike law, we base opinion on evidence.  While water vapor is certainly the predominant greenhouse gas -- the focus of global climate change is on what is the effect of human activity?

It is known, for certain, that carbon dioxide buildup is due, largely, to human activity.  

That you don't like the results of the IPCC is clear.  You probably are also rather in favor of the unfettered redistribution of wealth from the working class to the oil companies. You may even own an oil well.  You might own stock in a refinery.  You might own stock in American General who makes the Hummer.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- please disregard the last comment.  I object.  It is as baseless as the prosecutors allegations.

Early after the development of the atomic bomb some doctors thought radiation might be good for us.  

People used to think the world was flat.

How then, can we, merely because we have better evidence believe that it is round.  Indeed.  We can't know what to believe.

Columbus was just a politician.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


35 posted 09-07-2005 11:01 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

nope, don't own of that stuff, but what the hey.
It is not certain carbon dioxide buildup is create by human activity.  A small portion of it is.  Decay of plants, volcanos and any sort of natural events are by far the main releasers of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Not a question of what I like or don't like, it is the fact that the facts are based upon conjecture and the debate is heavily influenced by politics.
I prefer facts.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 09-07-2005 11:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Then you need to get them straight.

The fact is that the buildup of carbon dioxide is due, largely, to human activity.

We use words like 'largely' in science because, primarily, when speaking English we use English words.

Largely, means , more than the other contributing factors.  It doesn't mean solely.  

There are fluctuations in atmospheric composition due to natural causes.  There are differences in temperature from region to region. There are natural cycles.

But, during the industrial period there has been an UNNATURAL buildup of carbon dioxide, and ABNORMAL warming.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


37 posted 09-07-2005 11:45 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

you make leaps of faith with conjucture to arrive at statements of fact and then to  arrive at ABNORMAL AND UNNATURAL...  

You start with the fact that levels of one of the greenhouse gases has increased due to human activity in the last 200 hundred years, a gas that is overwhelming created without mankind's input, and conveniently throw aside the forces of nature and arrive at ABNORMAL and UNNATURAL.  

Still would rather believe on facts rather than conjecture and politics.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 09-08-2005 12:18 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

A political statement from our friends at the White House:

quote:

Human activities are adding greenhouse gases pollutants that trap in Earth's heat to the atmosphere at a faster rate than at any time over the past several thousand years.
A warming trend has been recorded since the late 19th century, with the most rapid warming occurring over the past two decades. If emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, scientists say we may change global temperature and our planet's climate at an unprecedented rate for our society.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateScienceFAQ.html




But what the hey Tim?  Why not just ignore that and ignore the National Academy of Science too?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUTQ4/$File/nas_ccsci_01.pdf

The atmospheric concentrations of

CO2  up 31%

CH4 up 151%

N2O up 17%

Science, the faith of doing things like counting how many of one kind of thing you have and keeping track of it, has confirmed this is primarily due to human activity. Burning coal, oil and gas, and cutting down forests are largely responsible.

Global temperatures are up an average of 1.1 degrees F over the last 100 years.  Gee, we should panic?  One degree... one measly little degree.... (don't forget the .1)  That's an aggregate number -- that's how we tell how much heat is in the soup.  If you don't think 1 degree is much of a difference then you need to consider that during the Ice Age the planet was only 9 degrees cooler than it is now.  

What's more important than the 1-degree is that this is a trend that is rapidly accelerating.  The cycles that the Earth goes through normally take a long time -- you might note -- the 8-degree warming period was a pretty long damn time.  Even the low-end projections of acceleration show the planet warming faster than any rate in the last 10,000 years.  Over the next 100 years the projected increase is 2.5 -10 degrees.  

The 20th Century was the warmest in the last 1000 years, with the 90's being the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last decade (remember this is based on data available in 2001).

It's pretty obvious to anyone standing inside a closed garage with a car motor running that there are some pretty dangerous gasses created.  The Earth is a closed garage.  We have natural carbon sinks in the system that can absorb both man-made and natural carbon-dioxide emissions -- but we're cutting those down.  

Any way you slice it -the facts all indicate human activity.

I'm not throwing away the forces of nature when I use words like Unnatural and Abnormal -- I have to consider what is normal and natural before I can conclude something is not.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 09-08-2005 12:31 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry Cat, didn't notice you came in and posted..

No.. heat transfer is heat transfer.  If it's 74 inside and 75 outside unless you have an air conditioner it's going to become 75 inside.

If it's 90 outside and 30 inside it's going to happen the same way -- just faster -- which is what we do in science to test things.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


40 posted 09-15-2005 07:13 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

After doing some incidental reading on the USACE site, I learned something.  Worst flooding in the US was in 1927, during the Great Flood, when 700k people were left homeless.  And that was before the massive population shifts which came during the Great Depression and Post War growth explosion.  After the disaster of 1927, the US Army Corps of Engineers was formed.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


41 posted 09-15-2005 10:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yes, and yes...

though, I'm trying to correlate a direction there Cat... you are informing the conversation to what end ?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


42 posted 09-15-2005 10:58 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, again, the USACE was responsible for flood prevention along US waterways, most notably the Mississippi River which forms the southern curve of New Orleans.  Those levies held.  The private industry responsible for the rest of the levee systems for New Orleans, though they had more than adequate funding, decided to invest in gambling enterprises instead of the levees of which they were responsible.  Perhaps they were desiring a capital return and higher revenues for the levies, or perhaps some pocket lining.  Their levies are the ones that failed.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 09-15-2005 11:03 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So then you're saying that the government works but private enterprise doesn't?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


44 posted 09-15-2005 11:37 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Obviously, in this instance Fed trumped Private.  Now, I'm all for private enterprise.  I'm all for workforce competition.  And I'm all for results.  There are things the private industry excel at doing, and there's things the state and federal governments excel at doing.  I'm not, however, for any type of enterprise without proper oversight and review.

Now, I'm not sure why the US Army Corps of Engineers was not allowed to oversee levee construction for Lake Pontcherain and the canal system, but the New Orleans Levee Board has some serious questions to answer.  Come to think of it, the USACE probably wasn't allowed since those things aren't US waterways, unlike the Hudson and Mississippi Rivers, although they did create Lake Texoma from several strategic dams along the Red River in between Texas and Oklhoma to prevent seasonal droughts and floods.  For New Orleans, politics were probably involved since the other levees did deal with flood prevention.

Had the Mississippi levies failed, the French Quarter might be deflooded by now, if all the pumps worked and the breaches closed.  That section would've sustained some gawdawful flooding, especially with upriver drainage.  Katrina did track along the eastern side of the Mississippi, cutting NE around Ohio into Canada, dropping copious amounts of rain along the way.  And all that water ends up in Old Miss.
Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's Monday Morning after Katrina   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors