Is Global Warming A Thing? (Hurricane Sandy Spinoff)

John Roberts

Graduate Student
Jan 12, 2011
2,309
3
38
MS
www.resotune.com
Parts of NYC got slammed pretty bad. The building where I work is 20 feet above sea level and had to shut down after 17 million gallons of water were pumped out of the basement with another 10-15 million left. The pumps failed, the generators got flooded and failed, the building had to be evacuated. The water obviously came WAY above the previous 200+ year record surge of 11 feet above sea level and above the 14.5 foot surge that was officially reported. The evidence from the NYC data point supporting the reality and rapid progress of global warming was strong enough to get the NYC mayor, a Republican with a degree in electrical engineering, to endorse Obama, largely based on the astoundingly huge flood way beyond predictions. Time to rethink global warming and start paying more attention to the weight of the scientific evidence rather than the weight of the political lobbies.

NYC was built on low ground between Hudson and East (and Harlem and Bronx) rivers. The freak couple hundred years storm caused the record storm surge.

Climate experts warn against reading too much into one or two storms but there are changes in weather (high pressure) patterns being blamed for different storm paths and behavior. Typically Atlantic side tropical storms veer off to the east, but this time a high pressure area pushed it west to join another low pressure system. Double trouble. But Atlantic tropical storms do veer inland too. I recall Hurricane Hazel back in 1954 tearing off our garage doors (northern NJ).

While I am surely repeating myself, this global warming issue gets smooshed together as a single question, "is the globe warming or not?", while that is objective and provable (it's always been warming or cooling). The larger and disputed questions are; "are humans alone responsible for the temperature change?" and "would taxing carbon, stop the temp change?". Even correlation with human activity does not prove human causation, and politicians have been trying to use changing global temperatures as an excuse to gain more control over the private economy for decades. Some of us recall when the scare was about global "cooling". Note: I have other questions, like what temperature should the planet be? And who gets to decide? If we determine that global warming needs to be mitigated there are surely more effective strategies than taxing carbon. A good treatment of the economics surrounding this was presented in the second Freakonomics book.

I would advise a lot of caution before actively altering the global temperature. At least the carbon tax, won't do much other than slow the global economic growth.

=========

I apologize for this veer, I grew up in NJ and still have friends in the area... I hope the attention you have received from the federal government persists past the election. Mayor Bloomberg is already walking back his mismanagement of the marathon, his "let them eat cake" moment.

If anything this storm should impress us all with the merit of a more robust power distribution with either buried, lines or hardened above ground lines. Many of the worst issues still facing NY and NJ come from power outages. Gas stations in FL that routinely experience hurricanes and power outages are wired for generator power by law. Up in the NE area such widespread power outages are not expected so preparations not required.

Good luck, it will take some real time and work to clean this mess up. At least the region has the wealth to rebuild, unlike so much of New Orleans after Katrina that didn't come back.

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

...I would advise a lot of caution before actively altering the global temperature...

JR, I absolutely agree with this statement. I would include burning of fossil fuels as one contributor to actively altering the global temperature. Carbon tax is only one of many proposed approaches to the global warming problem, and should be well down on the priority list, below development of all the alternative renewable sources of energy, improvement of efficiency, and other approaches.

Hurricane Sandy is just the latest in a series of "freak" weather and climate events, and chance is rapidly becoming a highly implausible explanation for this emerging trend. The problem is real, not a statistical fluke, and neither you nor I have the scientific expertise to say what a "cautious" approach should be. There are many people who have dedicated their lives to scientific study of climate and its determinants. Of course none of them can say with complete certainty what is happening, but making decisions under uncertainty is a reality of science and of life. The problem is that along with scientific uncertainty comes the process of political decision making. The decision makers with political power have been influenced much more by business lobbies and politics than by the really very good science that has been done and is ongoing to help us on planet Earth decide what is in our best collective interest for long term survival and prosperity.

Some scientists, mainly but not exclusively those who work directly for industry or are funded by industry, have a huge conflict of interest and have become unable to break away and do good objective scientific research and interpretation of results of scientific research. There needs to be a system set up to address this problem of conflict of interest, maybe similar to the peer review process that the National Institutes of Health use to guide some of the best medical research in the world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Now let me get this straight. The world was once a tropical paradise with dinosaurs roaming all over the place.Then it turned cold and the world was covered with ice.Then,the ice started to melt as the planet began to warm again.And the planet is still warming.Period!
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Now let me get this straight. The world was once a tropical paradise with dinosaurs roaming all over the place.Then it turned cold and the world was covered with ice.Then,the ice started to melt as the planet began to warm again.And the planet is still warming.Period!

A bit over simplified.

The simple math for global temperature is take the initial temperature, add the heat coming in from sunlight, then subtract heat lost into outer space.

Of course the precise quantification of the energy loss is rather complex (and where the global warming crowd make their bones trying to quantify), and then the solar energy coming in from the sun is not dead constant either but also fluctuates in short and long cycles, with some randomness to keep it interesting.

It should be obvious that small fractional fluctuation in the solar input could easily trump human related variables. I am not saying it is or does, just that it could, and has in the past, as the previous ice age(s?) stand testament to. We didn't make them. :)

This needs to be taken seriously, but it's not time to poison the kool aid and drink up.

Wait until after Dec.... :) and lets see where the magnetic poles end up.

JR

PS I wrote a long answer to George but deleted that... as complex as the global (average) temperature calculus is, then we have climate, which is even more dynamic and interacts in odd ways as it tries to normalize energy (heat) flows around the globe. We could have even crappier weather with the exact same "average" temperature, while we should expect changes from large scale heating or cooling.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Now let me get this straight. The world was once a tropical paradise with dinosaurs roaming all over the place.Then it turned cold and the world was covered with ice.Then,the ice started to melt as the planet began to warm again.And the planet is still warming.Period!
That is about like saying, I need my band to be 3 times as loud for a bigger venue so I will buy 2 more tops for each side, put em up on sticks, aim em at the people, and let er rip. Simple.

Come on, Randy, that explanation is so oversimplified it is highly implausible and not useful.

JR, I don't claim to know enough of the science myself to make all the state of the art technical arguments, and I don't think you or anyone on this forum does either. I am just saying that we should pay more attention and give more weight to all the scientists who do know the science, not just those who are funded by industry and have the greatest conflict of interest. There is a role for government here, to support scientists to do and interpret science without the constraints of self interest of private corporations that fund them. It works quite well for medical research, not perfect, but better than trusting big pharm to do all the science and then market the technology based on that research.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hurricane Sandy

That is about like saying, I need my band to be 3 times as loud for a bigger venue so I will buy 2 more tops for each side, put em up on sticks, aim em at the people, and let er rip. Simple.

Come on, Randy, that explanation is so oversimplified it is highly implausible and not useful.
I believe he posted in jest, but sometimes it is worth taking a step back from both the minutiae of "this is too complex so just trust me", and the Greek chorus chanting "carbon is evil, carbon is evil.. "
JR, I don't claim to know enough of the science myself to make all the state of the art technical arguments, and I don't think you or anyone on this forum does either. I am just saying that we should pay more attention and give more weight to all the scientists who do know the science, not just those who are funded by industry and have the greatest conflict of interest.

I may be arrogant but even rocket science, or brain surgery, or whatever is not indecipherable just complex and intricate, so no I do not just take anybody's word for it, especially the government with the nonsense they have been trying to push on us this last decade or so. Carbon credits and a carbon tax will not do squat for mother earth, but will be another powerful axe for government to wield over the private economy. Talk about conflict of interest, they have the most to gain, from us acquiescing to their programs and giving them even more control over the energy industry.

There is a role for government here, to support scientists to do and interpret science without the constraints of self interest of private corporations that fund them. It works quite well for medical research, not perfect, but better than trusting big pharm to do all the science and then market the technology based on that research.

Interesting that you mention pharma. I recall a discussion a few years back about an unintended consequence of fostering a "holier than Caesar's wife" criteria for government review and oversight panels that industry experts could not be sullied by any past consulting contracts. You automatically rule out the most qualified experts who make a living working for the people who will pay them best. :)

As I have already suggested government, or at least some in government, are not completely disinterested in the outcome of global warming research.

I think this peer review management is simpler than we make it. Opinions and subjective conclusions will always vary with self interest, but the data should be inviolate. All the research no matter who funded it "should" be building a huge combined data base that future scientists can study and review. The only reported case of fudging the actual data I am aware of was done by a university academic type. While there may be more we haven't heard about yet.

This is a slow moving phenomenon, so we need to be deliberate and thoughtful about doing anything that actually impacts the global temperature. All the arm waving and economic disruption that doesn't alter global temperatures, is a waste of money and effort that we have better use for, especially now. The world economy does not need another sea anchor, just because it seems like a good idea..

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

This is a slow moving phenomenon, so we need to be deliberate and thoughtful about doing anything that actually impacts the global temperature. All the arm waving and economic disruption that doesn't alter global temperatures, is a waste of money and effort that we have better use for, especially now. The world economy does not need another sea anchor, just because it seems like a good idea..

Funny thing is, once in a while they (the powers that be) actually manages to get it right. Banning CFC-gases caused the kind of mild economic disruption that made whole industries move forward, and beside having a positive end result for a niche of the economy, chances are that the ozone layer actually benefitted.

So far, what has been implemented to reduce emission of green-house gases, have been scams with no real effect and rather futile excercises with ill side-effects. Carbon tax and the trade in carbon-equivalents are probebly the best scams since the Y2K scam. While buying a quota or paying tax doesn't reduce the emissions, it makes some people rich, and like any other snake oil scheme, if you market it well and get the right people to take the bait, your fortune is made. While carbon tax in theory might persuade people to choose "greener", the EU and the governments here in Europe are now screwing that up by introducing energy tax on non-polluting energies, making these forms of energies less attractive. The thinking is that any use of energy will ultimately cause carbondioxide to be emitted for various reasons. While this might hold some truth, the end effect is that taxation no longer will be biased towards handicapping carbon emitting energy sources.

Using various food crops to produce fuel has hiked food prices and is potentially very close to causing world hunger.
Turning waste into fuel, waste that might either be burned anyway or decompose fairly quickly, can potentially be beneficial provided that you don't spend too much energy and resources. But the idea that any biofuel is good is flawed, chopping down a tree and burning it releases carbon that might othewise have been stored for a further few decades or longer. The thinking that if it is already in the cycle it is ok to burn fails to recognize the whole dynamic of the carbon cycle, a cycle that also include fossil fuels (which are biofuels that have been stored a little longer).
Politicians and a large proportion of the general public tend to jump on bandwagons and only focus on one aspect of any issue or idea.

Sceptics with a broader view are easily put in the same group as the sceptics that refuse to accept even proven facts, and are therefore too easily dismissed.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Funny thing is, once in a while they (the powers that be) actually manages to get it right. Banning CFC-gases caused the kind of mild economic disruption that made whole industries move forward, and beside having a positive end result for a niche of the economy, chances are that the ozone layer actually benefitted.
Projections are that ozone will return to 1950 levels by 2080, a good thing. Some draw parallels but A) not blocking the high frequency UV radiation is demonstrably bad for human health (skin cancer anyone?). B) there was little question about where CFCs came from, C) and the cost to society was modest.

For those keeping score, Ozone is a greenhouse gas, so arguably filling the hole over Antarctica will reduce cooling losses there and increase Antarctic temperature. A small price to pay IMO for the wider health benefit to all living things.

Speaking of only sometimes getting it right, I remain apprehensive that government bans on DDT, thwarted inexpensive control of mosquito borne malaria in developing countries, leading to many unnecessary childhood deaths and disease. Of course this isn't simple and DDT is far from risk free, but dying from malaria is forever.
So far, what has been implemented to reduce emission of green-house gases, have been scams with no real effect and rather futile excercises with ill side-effects. Carbon tax and the trade in carbon-equivalents are probebly the best scams since the Y2K scam. While buying a quota or paying tax doesn't reduce the emissions, it makes some people rich, and like any other snake oil scheme, if you market it well and get the right people to take the bait, your fortune is made. While carbon tax in theory might persuade people to choose "greener", the EU and the governments here in Europe are now screwing that up by introducing energy tax on non-polluting energies, making these forms of energies less attractive. The thinking is that any use of energy will ultimately cause carbondioxide to be emitted for various reasons. While this might hold some truth, the end effect is that taxation no longer will be biased towards handicapping carbon emitting energy sources.
I don't want to rehash the old conspiracy theories, so I won't, but if the shoe fits.
Using various food crops to produce fuel has hiked food prices and is potentially very close to causing world hunger.
I notice that the price of generic store brand canned corn has literally doubled over the last several years (1# now $0.68, was $0.33) since ethanol fraction has become mandated. The impact has rippled through the entire food chain as corn made up a lot of animal feed stocks. My observation about what I pay for canned corn is anecdotal, but food prices worldwide are rising for this and sundry other reasons (like energy cost).

I recall maybe ten years ago a small company sold a home heating stove, modified to burn corn. At the time burning corn was cheaper than other heat sources. Not so much now.
Turning waste into fuel, waste that might either be burned anyway or decompose fairly quickly, can potentially be beneficial provided that you don't spend too much energy and resources.
The old "something for nothing" thesis, ignores that even old corn stalks that formerly get plowed under return nutrients to the soil that must be restored by adding more fertilizer, if collected and fermented. I think the electricity utilities should harvest trees near overhead power lines as a temporary bridge solution until the power distribution system can be hardened but not a significant long term source of energy.

I like sugar cane to make the modest amounts of ethanol useful for oxygenation (better than MTBE). The current plan to push ethanol fraction to 15% from 10% scares me. I recently had to replace the fuel lines in my chain saw, because they literally disintegrated from sitting in 10% ethanol. I drive a '97 car that was not engineered for the corrosive effects. Even gas stations need to replace their pumps to survive the more corrosive 15% blend.
But the idea that any biofuel is good is flawed, chopping down a tree and burning it releases carbon that might othewise have been stored for a further few decades or longer. The thinking that if it is already in the cycle it is ok to burn fails to recognize the whole dynamic of the carbon cycle, a cycle that also include fossil fuels (which are biofuels that have been stored a little longer).
Trees need to be grown and harvested to make biofuel from them, so the energy calculus is not simple. I believe there is an experimental biofuel from wood plant in MS, but that is likely the result of federal government throwing bus loads of money at any alternate fuel project. Perhaps a good plan if we were running low on fossil fuel, as has been long predicted (incorrectly IMO). We will run low eventually, just not in my lifetime, and when that happens price increases in anticipation of that actually happening will drive economic alternatives with market forces.
Politicians and a large proportion of the general public tend to jump on bandwagons and only focus on one aspect of any issue or idea.

Sceptics with a broader view are easily put in the same group as the sceptics that refuse to accept even proven facts, and are therefore too easily dismissed.

+1.... but the public is never expected to fully understand the difficult stuff. They are expected to vote their self-interest which in this case seems to be poorly quantified. The number of hyperbolic arguments warning about global warming seem tantamount to snake oil sales pitches, making the credible science supporting warming thesis harder to take seriously, lost in all the arm waving and poor S/N.

It is human nature for this issue to be raised around major weather events. Coincidentally multiple global warming conferences have been postponed or affected negatively due to snow and/or cold weather ironically called the "Al Gore" effect. Trying to avoid snow by scheduling the 2011 meeting in Cancun Mexico and Al Gore staying away, still set a 100 year record for low temperature in Cancun of 54'. Weather events like this are anecdotal so not proof of anything but humans can not resist trying to attach some significance (I don't). If anything I'd say somebody upstairs is messing with Al, but he is comfortable making lots of money from his alternate energy investments.

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

This kind of induced hysteria is IMO the most sinister kind of gov't sanctioned fear mongoring and diversion from issues we can actually calculate and act somewhat successfully upon. I have friends that are so frenzied about this but can give no practical and logical first step on what should be done to actually create a RESULT instead of fulfilling a political agenda. This path appears to me to be more dangerous than racial or class warfare as most can be lured onboard which translates into even greater political power for someone. Certainly not a someone I would like being in charge. The DDT issue is one I struggle with as we know it is a carcinogen. I wonder what would happen if we found out that millions of baby squirrels were dying from Malaria?
 
Last edited:
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Anyone care to comment about the possibility of weather modification causing or affecting the outcome of Sandy? JR?

I think I recall hearing about some early experiments attempting to alter tropical storm formation and trajectory, but the liability for being connected to steering the path for a large destructive storm is politically unacceptable. Imagine the outrage from the region who ends up taking the hit, because the government steered a storm in one direction or the other.

Note: I am not suggesting this could easily be done in large enough scale, just suggesting why it is not likely to be pursued by anybody as viable. I have hypothesized that extracting heat from the ocean surface around the equator should reduce the energy available to power these tropical storms. Easier said than done, but there should be energy available to be extracted from the temperature differential between the surface and even a couple hundred feet down. Of course we need efficient energy transmission means to move any energy extracted this way to land.

Again just like caution should be practiced before messing with the global thermostat, we need to be careful about altering ocean surface temperatures as that will affect numerous weather/climate factors (ocean circulation patterns, cloud formation, etc etc etc... ). Danger Will Robinson, now that could lead to human caused changes, for better or worse. Do we feel lucky?

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • man_bear_pig.jpg
    man_bear_pig.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 0
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Again just like caution should be practiced before messing with the global thermostat, we need to be careful about altering ocean surface temperatures as that will affect numerous weather/climate factors (ocean circulation patterns, cloud formation, etc etc etc... ).

JR


Not to mention the thousands and thousands of species that would have their habitat changed...
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I think I recall hearing about some early experiments attempting to alter tropical storm formation and trajectory, but the liability for being connected to steering the path for a large destructive storm is politically unacceptable. Imagine the outrage from the region who ends up taking the hit, because the government steered a storm in one direction or the other.

Note: I am not suggesting this could easily be done in large enough scale, just suggesting why it is not likely to be pursued by anybody as viable. I have hypothesized that extracting heat from the ocean surface around the equator should reduce the energy available to power these tropical storms. Easier said than done, but there should be energy available to be extracted from the temperature differential between the surface and even a couple hundred feet down. Of course we need efficient energy transmission means to move any energy extracted this way to land.

Again just like caution should be practiced before messing with the global thermostat, we need to be careful about altering ocean surface temperatures as that will affect numerous weather/climate factors (ocean circulation patterns, cloud formation, etc etc etc... ). Danger Will Robinson, now that could lead to human caused changes, for better or worse. Do we feel lucky?

JR

The current class of weather modification technology is not really rocket science. The oversimplified explanation consists of a focused high power microwave source heating the water in the clouds. If you think about it, a microwave oven works by heating the water content in the food, and a storm is caused by different temperature and pressure regions reacting. The real trick is knowing where to put the heat to get the desired result. We are not talking about global weather change here, just being able to create, steer, and dissipate storms.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hurricane Sandy

The current class of weather modification technology is not really rocket science. The oversimplified explanation consists of a focused high power microwave source heating the water in the clouds. If you think about it, a microwave oven works by heating the water content in the food, and a storm is caused by different temperature and pressure regions reacting. The real trick is knowing where to put the heat to get the desired result. We are not talking about global weather change here, just being able to create, steer, and dissipate storms.

Simple in concept but probably difficult in execution, and as I mentioned... even if you could steer a hurricane, where do you send it, to Cuba, Haiti? The tin foil hat crowd probably figures they already are... :-(

I guess if you could create a regular series of small tropical storms they could consume the surface heat energy and dissipate it without growing into large storms that damage life and property. Just like they shut down some geo-thermal energy projects over fear of man-caused earthquakes. I suspect man made tropical storms are another can of worms, and payday for tort lawyers.

JR

PS: How do you remove heat from the storms? The issue with storms is too much heat energy, already.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I think everyone needs to step back and take a look at the broader picture...

Remember when that volcano went off in Iceland and shut down air traffic in part of Europe?
Remember that the surface of the Earth is covered about 75% with water?
Remember that the industrialized parts of the earth does not constitute very much of the remaining 25% of the surface of the Earth?

What makes anyone think that ANYTHING we could do would have a significant effect on the climate?
Think about how much heat is in the oceans around the equator... IF there were a way to extract all that heat, what would you do with it? How are you going to extract it? It is going to require some sort of energy to extract that heat from the oceans... this, of course, is going to generate more heat...

End result: there is not a thing we can do to regulate the temperature on the surface of this ball.

What do you think would happen if the glaciers started encroaching for another ice age? Would we cut holes in the encroaching glaciers so they go around our cities? What about the roads between the cities? What about the farm lands that would be lost under the glaciers?

You can't stop Mother Nature. She is going to do whatever she wants to do. We have to deal with it.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I think everyone needs to step back and take a look at the broader picture...

Remember when that volcano went off in Iceland and shut down air traffic in part of Europe?
Not sure what your point is, but studies of global temps after major eruptions generally reflect modest short term cooling, if it throws enough matter high enough into the upper atmosphere. (Like Mt Pinatubo in '91).
Remember that the surface of the Earth is covered about 75% with water?
um yes?
Remember that the industrialized parts of the earth does not constitute very much of the remaining 25% of the surface of the Earth?
But we manage to introduce and release many things into the atmosphere as side effects from our oxidation of fossil fuels.
What makes anyone think that ANYTHING we could do would have a significant effect on the climate?
There does appear to be some correlation with human industrialization, while correlation does not prove cause.
Think about how much heat is in the oceans around the equator...
Think of how much heat is in the molten core, coming in from the sun, and reradiated back out into space. Yes lots of heat around.
IF there were a way to extract all that heat, what would you do with it?
I'd make electricity.
How are you going to extract it?
Perhaps a stirling cycle heat engine using differential between surface and deeper water temp.
It is going to require some sort of energy to extract that heat from the oceans...
We should be able to get more energy out than it takes us to extract it, like drilling for oil and pumping it to the surface.
this, of course, is going to generate more heat...
?? not sure I follow. It would pull heat from ocean surface, convert it to electricity, and move it to where the electricity is consumed where it will be released as heat again. Not create new heat, move around existing heat. Cooling the equatorial ocean surface temps should reduce intensity of tropical storms (probably with some unintended bad effect I don't immediately see). Increasing the temp in cities where electricity gets consumed is an already occurring phenomenon and we can deal with that "problem" when it becomes more bothersome. Reducing intensity of harmful tropical storms may justify the exchange.
End result: there is not a thing we can do to regulate the temperature on the surface of this ball.
In fact we could, and I strongly advice caution before doing so in any scale, because the unintended consequences could be major.

One area that has been researched is altering the absorption/reflection coefficient of the ocean surface. making this more reflective could cool, making it absorb more hotter. Also messing with cloud formation could alter thermal loss/absorption calculus.

This has been researched as a technique, not tested for systemic control. Again I warn of unintended consequences from not being absolutely certain of what we are doing.
What do you think would happen if the glaciers started encroaching for another ice age? Would we cut holes in the encroaching glaciers so they go around our cities? What about the roads between the cities? What about the farm lands that would be lost under the glaciers?
Unless there is some sudden cataclysmic event (like bad sci-fi movies), and even then the human race is extremely adaptable.
You can't stop Mother Nature. She is going to do whatever she wants to do. We have to deal with it.

I am inclined to agree, that we can't "stop" mother nature but we can learn to intelligently coexist, and maybe nudge her one way or the other. I don't think we need to throw a thermostat on the global temp and set it for some fixed "correct" temperature.


Or not...

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I think that given the general trend of environmental destruction that us humans are well known for, I find it not a ridiculous leap to assume that our polluting ways will inevitably have an effect on our atmosphere and therefore, by extension, alter the climate to some degree.

I also think that there is much evidence to support the fact that the climate of our planet goes through many changes of its own accord.

However, I think that the question surely has to be 'to what degree do we effect our climate?'. I believe it is abundantly clear that our actions have an effect on our environment. The question is what is this doing, and if it is bad, then what is the most effective way to reduce the negative effects.

I'm not sure how anyone could honestly believe that industrialisation doesn't effect the climate at all?