Hurricane Sandy is bearing down on the eastern U.S.
Image: R. SIMMON/NASA EARTH OBSERVATORY
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine.
The United States is reeling under the impact of a massive hurricane named Sandy, the second to hit the northeastern states in two years. Flooding and widespread blackouts have crippled New York City and parts of New Jersey. Even the upcoming US election is taking a back seat, as President Barack Obama has quit the campaign trail to oversee the federal response. Throughout, there has been frequent talk of global warming as a potential driver of such events, but scientists and the media are still struggling with how to communicate the complexities. Nature takes a look at the science behind the storm.
What is making Hurricane Sandy so devastating?
First and foremost is the sheer size of the storm. As it approached the United States’ eastern seaboard on Monday, hurricane-force winds (more than 118.5 kilometres per hour) extended some 280 kilometres from the centre of the storm, peaking around 145 kilometres per hour. Tropical-storm winds registering above 63 kilometres per hour extended outwards for up to 780 kilometres.
Why is it unusual?
Hurricane Sandy is potentially unprecedented, officials say, because of the meteorological context within which it has developed. First, before reaching land, it was feeding off unusually warm surface waters in the Atlantic Ocean. Second, whereas such storms tend to skirt the US coast before drifting to the northeast and dissipating at sea, Sandy has been influenced by a high-pressure system off Greenland that has forced it inland. In doing so, the storm has merged with a winter system moving in from the west, putting forecasters in the unusual position of having to issue snow advisories for a tropical-hurricane system. Finally, the effects of the storm may have been enhanced by a full Moon, which generally means higher than average tides.
What is the link to global warming?
Some scientists point out that we might expect to see more of these types of severe weather events in a warmer world — even if any one storm cannot be directly attributed to global warming. Earlier this month, a team at the Beijing Normal University in China found that big storm surges have increased in frequency since 1923, and that large-scale events are roughly twice as likely in warmer years than in colder ones. Others have talked about the potential that summer sea ice melt and increasingly open waters in the Arctic Ocean might be altering the flow of the jet stream that circles the Northern Hemisphere, leading to both hurricanes and the large winter storms that have hammered the northeast in recent years.
But the issue is far from settled, and climate change is not the only factor. For example, while sea surface temperatures are currently about 3 °C above average along the Atlantic coast, the expected increase due to global warming is just 0.6 °C, according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. So while the changing climate certainly plays a role, Trenberth says, there is plenty of space for natural variability.
Going forward, higher sea levels due to global warming are expected to compound the threat of more intense hurricanes. According to a modelling study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and Princeton University in New Jersey, published in February in Nature Climate Change [doi:10.1038/nclimate1389], the combined effects of climatology and a 1-metre increase in sea levels could mean that 100-year surge events occur every 3-20 years by the end of the century.
What does this mean on the ground?
The storm hammered much of the US east coast and an estimated 20% of the US population, from the Carolinas to New England. It drove an enormous storm surge as the anticlockwise winds drive water towards the coast to the north of the storm's centre, leading to severe flooding many areas. In New York City, officials said the surge may have broken a record set nearly 200 years ago, flooding tunnels and subways. Millions of people across the region are without power, and high water levels near New Jersey's inoperational Oyster Creek nuclear-power plant have prompted officials to put the facility on 'alert' — the second-lowest of a four-tiered warning system. Moreover, the storm could bring prolonged and intense precipitation as it moves inland. President Barack Obama has signed disaster declarations for 12.
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add CommentThere is a 'boo hoo' element to this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJersey got nailed.
Deal with it.
Climate change has always been, is, and will always be. Al Gore's faith based man made climate change is just that "Faith based climate change", accept it all or be labeled a denier. "Those who don't believe in man made climate change should be tried at Nuremberg ..." and I assume burnt at the stake like Burno for denying the earth is flat and not the center of the universe. Of course you learned people like the Christian inquisitors know best. The rest of us are just heretics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Ebarker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking the silly claim that climate has changed before humans appeared on the scene therefore humans can not be responsible now is like claiming that since forest fires happened before humans ever evolved therefore forest arson is impossible now. Idiocy.
Good post. It appears there is some connection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
With some 14 land falling October hurricanes in the past 100 years we should not be surprised to see another one. It is our status quo bias that makes such events appear spectacular, not reality. Sandy is also far from the strongest or most devastating either. It is our frail infrastructure and dependence on it that turns these normal events into disasters
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaam1959
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe devastat8i9....Sandy isn't even a blip compared to some past hurricanes. This is largely due to the warning, emergency infrastructure, etc. Thousands have died on the east coast of North America from storms.
Today most people have power out, flooded basements and lost work for a couple days. A century before people's whole live were in turmoil from such events.
I was in Atlantic Canada when a tail end of a hurricane hit in the 1970's...there were a couple of fatalities...a similar storm hit just over a century before and whole shipping fleets and coastal towns were wiped out with the death toll is the thousands.
Why don't you guys give it a rest. You wonder why you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishave deniers....anyone with any common sense knows
that it is way to early to blame this storm on global warming with any evidence to back it up. In fact there are so many variables involved and so much chance with regards to all these weather systems coming together at once that there is no way that any reasonable person could be persuaded that global warming was behind it. Is this supposed to be science. Your capacity for self delusion is amazing.And you think that deniers are
foolish....how can anything that you people say be taken seriously
CCCCoooommmmeee onnnnnnn.
Every 300 years or so such storms combine to create a megastorm; this has been going on for millions of years, so what's the big deal? Did humankind build a little too close to the ocean?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to wonder why the deniers always comment on an article they never read. Is it intellectual cowardice or laziness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is it intellectual cowardice or laziness?" A lot of both. Then again, why bother reading when facts are irrelevant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your capacity for self delusion is amazing.And you think that deniers are foolish....how can anything that you people say be taken seriously" actually I think deniers are idiots and you reinforced that judgement by commenting on an article you didn't read. You must understand that your ignorance of the world does not mean that everyone else is just as ignorant. Some people actually make an effort to understand what they are talking about. You should try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe drumbeat starts...Knee jerk reaction .. The title
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissays it all...Climate discussion spins up. Like I said
give it a rest. If you guys want to be taken seriously
by anyone with a thread of intelligence you have to stop
this knee jerk reaction to everything. There may be some
evidence for global warming but stop attributing evertything that happens to global warming....JJJEEEESSSSS
I would like you to point out one thing in this story
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat gives any evidence that global warming caused this storm.....
Actually it is because I am extremely tired of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreading the same blah blah knee jerk raction to
everything that happens being caused by global warming.
The title says it all. "Sandy spins up climate discussion". Then some psuedo scientists implies that it
may be due to global warming with no investigation and
no...facts pointing to that conclusion...The same drum
beat, the same mindless rush to pin everything on global warming. YYUUUCCCCKKKKK
Of course, blame should be brought to bear due to global warming. And in all these events global warming is a factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with deniers, and perhaps with climate change acceptors who are unwilling to say an unequivocally that global warming is involved, is that too many are equating "cause and effect" with "but for".
In any case "cause and effect" are artificial ideas. I'm willing to take an extreme position here, which might be wrong in some specific circumstance, but which is correct generally, and that is "cause and effect" of one particular factor on an effect can only occur in controlled and experimental circumstances.
In the lab, one sets up controlled conditions and then forces only one factor to vary, holding all other factors constant. In these controlled conditions, one is justified in saying unequivocally that this factor "causes" this "effect". This is how engineering and the sciences work. Not even the simplest machine, like the lever, will work unless the beam is stiff enough, the fulcrum is strong enough, and the weight being lifted is small enough, etc. That is, there is not one cause involved with the simple lever effect, but many factors (causes).
The Sandy weather event is unique, and but for global warming "Sandy" would not have occurred -- "Sandy" being sum total of all the events of this particular "Sandy". Would this specific "Sandy" have occurred if global warming was not present? Of course, not. There may have been a different "Sandy" that would not have been identical in every respect to the "Sandy" that did occur, but for the increase in water temperature (additional heat energy) caused by global warming. Without the additional energy from the warmer ocean temperatures, the new "Sandy" might have been a little smaller, moved in a slightly different direction, had different wind speeds, or not occurred at all.
There is simply no rational scientific argument that can be made to deny the warmer temperatures of the ocean water was a factor in the development of this particular "Sandy". Adding more energy to any dynamic system will always have some effect. "But for" the additional energy some hurricane called "Sandy" would not have occurred? Of course, not. But this particular "Sandy" with all its unique events absolutely was caused by the increased ocean temperatures caused by global warming, among other factors.
To say otherwise is beyond ridiculous. A change in energy of any thermodynamic system will always have an effect.
Yes all the science deniers make sure they read all of the science articles to put doubt in all science based research, while they rely on big oil scientists to provide their bogus claims. Go to www.skepticalscience.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto get your answers to your whiney claims that climate change is not occurring. CO2 levels have been this high before...about 650,000 years ago, when homo-sapiens(not a sexual preference to you science deniers)did not exist. Continue with the cephalo-rectal inversion mind set, it has been successful for you in the past. Just to have a low % of scientists that back your views, does not justify it. Watch FRONTLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE and learn that this movement begins with the Koch Bothers, their PAC-AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY, then HEARTLAND INSTITUTE-big oil science denier "institute". This is where the "BS MOUNTAIN" CLIMATE DENIERS get their information. www.skepticalscience.com handles all of their objections to real science. 97% of climate scientists AGREE that climate change is occurring NOW. The scince deniers got worried after Gore won Nobel nad Oscar awards for his film "Inconvieneient Truth". Even big business is getting ready. The cephal-rectal school will continue with 'BS Mountain", it is all that they see.
@Rodestar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you read the paragraph titled, "What is the link to global warming?" Then read the first sentence, "Some scientists point out that we might expect to see more of these types of severe weather events in a warmer world — even if any one storm cannot be directly attributed to global warming."
So you are either guilty of dishonestly building a strawman argument, did not read the article, or are too stupid to understand what you are criticizing. Which is it?
The only knee jerk reaction to be found on this thread is your automatic personal incredulity to the science.
Linking a single storm event to climate change (which is real) has been a non-starter from the earliest days of legitimate climate studies. Only in the world of Man Made Climate Change studies, where man is the ultimate cause of everything, does it make sense and is very desirable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Trent1492 documents brilliantly, much of the research of the past twenty years has been corrupted by the initial assumption that CO2 is responsible for everything. What then passes for research is merely descriptive and contains no causitive insight whatsoever. It is intellectually no different than stating that the human eye is so complex that only God could have created it. No other causes have been fully explored, nor encouraged to be explored, nor even tolerated.
It is essentially Alarmist-Creationism, whereby nothing is possible without the guiding hand of Man-God. Or Mann-God as it were.
There is now some interesting discussion on how Mann's hockey stick was created in WUWT website. The discussion is not stats heavy, but it shows that now papers are being rejected from publication using the same statistical methods that Mann employed. The question now will be whether Mann will be forced to retract previously published work, and if all those who built on his flawed premise will do likewise as well.
Armstrong had to give up his yellow jerseys and had his name scrubbed from the record books. Will Mann suffer the same fate? Same Bat Time, same Bat Channel.
Deny or accept, this event points out the importance of resilency in our cities as we continue to increase population and create more and more mega-cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisasters are not 'natural' occurences. Disasters occur at the intersection of human society and natural (or manmade) events. As such we can (in theroy) be properly situated to deal with these anticipated events.
Head in sand is not a sound strategy.
Shorter Shoshin: The data is corrupt! But I got no data to present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot up to me to present data. The Alarmists are the one's proposing the CAGW theory. The onus is on the proposer to present data. That's the way it works. Or are you a Denier of the Scientific Method?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why idiots continue to use the term denier to describe people who agree with what the science tells us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes more CO2 will warm the atmosphere if all other things remain the same. The question is how much how fast and what will happen as a result. The next question is what should be done.
Fact- science is uncertain of what the rate of warming will be unless you put out a number with such a high margin of error so that the figure covers all the way from warming that is of no concern to warming that is potentially dangerous
Fact- We do not know what the net impact (positive and negative) will be to humanity. We do not have models with sufficient fidelity to accurately tell us what the changes in conditions will be to individual countries or regions
Fact- No one knows that a mitigation action (reducing the amount of CO2 emitted today) will have any positive impact on the weather for anyone alive. We know that they can be expensive and that there are other uses for our limited funds, but we do not know that if we take the action whether it will result is better weather.
@Shsohin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is some logic for you. The person who makes a claim has the burden of evidence. You and your fellow travelers claim fraud in regards to Michael Mann. What and your comrades in fossil fuel apology have done is switch the burden of providing evidence.
E.G I make the claim that a dozen different studies have confirmed the Hockey Stick. Studies by different researchers using different methodologies and proxies still result in the same conclusive.
I provide peer reviewed empirically based evidence for the claim: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
I have done my responsibility. If you want to claim the Hokey Stick is a fraud then you need to similarly provide peer reviewed empirically based evidence that that not just the work Michael Mann is a fraud but that the other ten works are a fraud too.
Your failure to acknowledge even the existence of those other confirmatory peer reviewed empirically based studies stands as a condemnation of your intellectual cowardice.
Got yellow belly?
@Sisko/Pokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a denier. That is a fact. Let us review the science you are in denial of:
1. You deny that ocean acidification is a problem in spite of the expert judgement provided by marine biologist and chemist. Fact.
2. You deny that weather extremes are occurring at increased frequency in spite of a multitude of evidence to the contrary. Fact
3. You deny the drag that climate change is already having on agriculture. Fact.
4. You refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of the geological and archaeological evidence that 20th century sea rise is anomalous for the past 8,0000 years. You even refuse to acknowledge the study of tide gauges is reasonably accurate. Fact
5. You are in denial that the physics predicts further acceleration of sea level rise over the present rate of 3.1mm. Somehow you have come to the conclusion that your personal incredulity is a logical argument. Fact
6. And last but not least every time Scientific American publishes a new story on new findings from peer reviewed journals you always call include the phrase "unsientific American". Fact.
Fact: We will not take any action to reduce the use of our beloved fossil fuels. To much money to be made from coal and oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""I wonder why idiots continue to use the term denier to describe people who agree with what the science tells us. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys don't. You use the term "alarmists" to describe us rational people.
"""Yes more CO2 will warm the atmosphere if all other things remain the same. The question is how much how fast and what will happen as a result. The next question is what should be done."""
Speed: faster than the PETM event.
What will happen: Ever read "Oceans of Kansas"?
What should be done: Stop using fossil fuels, plant lots of plants, sequester CO2.
"""Fact- science is uncertain of what the rate of warming will be unless you put out a number with such a high margin of error so that the figure covers all the way from warming that is of no concern to warming that is potentially dangerous"""
Lie.
"""Fact- We do not know what the net impact (positive and negative) will be to humanity. We do not have models with sufficient fidelity to accurately tell us what the changes in conditions will be to individual countries or regions"""
Lie. It's been pretty well established for a while now that much of Bangladesh will be underwater by 2100.
"""Fact- No one knows that a mitigation action (reducing the amount of CO2 emitted today) will have any positive impact on the weather for anyone alive. We know that they can be expensive and that there are other uses for our limited funds, but we do not know that if we take the action whether it will result is better weather."""
Lie, and obfuscation when you use the subjective term "better weather".
"""Not up to me to present data. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoward.
"""The Alarmists are the one's proposing the CAGW theory. """
True.
"""The onus is on the proposer to present data. That's the way it works. Or are you a Denier of the Scientific Method?"""
Except that, once a hypothesis has met the rigorous burden of proof and testability necessary to become a theory, it is up to its opponents to find data that controverts it. Get looking, coward.
The crucial words in this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Some scientists point out that we might expect to see more of these types of severe weather events in a warmer world — even if any one storm cannot be directly attributed to global warming.'
See the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th assessment report on the projected impacts:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html.
Or the third assessment from 2001 and the summary of the impacts on coastal areas: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/117.htm
'The extent and severity of storm impacts, including storm-surge floods and shore erosion, will increase as a result of climate change...'
Even if Sandy would have happened without the climate change that's been caused by human beings burning fossil fuel and trashing the land, why would we choose to increase the risk of more storms like Sandy?
Why not make ourselves more secure in a more stable climate by choosing to protect the land, reduce our energy use, and change from fossil fuels to sustainable energy?
Why is that so hard, when the consequences of carrying on as usual may be so terrible?
Greed. There's a lot of money to be made from fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I get it that greed is what motivates all the fossil fuel companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut why does anybody who isn't paid by them resist doing anything about climate change?
And indeed, why don't more people working in the fossil fuel industry use their intelligence and ingenuity and skill to switch their business to sustainable energy?
On your first comment: Because anybody with political power who wants to keep it panders to the oil industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond: because they're lazy.
CAGW doesn't get to win by default. It gets no free ride or a pass. You Alarmists that want to change the rules of science to suit your politics are merely anti-science hacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresent data that can withstand scrutiny or suffer the same fate as Mann. Maybe 12 studies show the same results as he got. I don't doubt it. They were directed by Mann to perform the same flawed calculations that he did. If Mann's data was correct, it should be consistent no matter how you look at it. If there is a flaw from one angle, the entire theory is flawed and must be reworked or discarded. That's the way science works.
That is why journals are now rejecting Mann's methodology. It is not robust and contains errors.
Using your Alarmo-Creationist logic, as long as something works once, but is shown to be a failure 53 times, it is still true.
Wow. You just don't give up, do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the data that we currently have points to human fossil fuel use as the cause of our current episode of climate change, which is proceeding several orders of magnitude than any previous such event. You denialists and your greed for cheap gas and mega SUVs just stand in the way of anyone who tries to fix anything. In a nutshell, you and your denialist cronies will doom us all (and I know that that sounds weird).
"""CAGW doesn't get to win by default. It gets no free ride or a pass. You Alarmists that want to change the rules of science to suit your politics are merely anti-science hacks."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, it's you who wants to change the rules of science to fit your blind, irrational worldview.
"""Present data that can withstand scrutiny or suffer the same fate as Mann. """
We have. The world has left you behind, as you obviously didn't notice that "Climategate" was a hoax and that Mann was right.
"""Maybe 12 studies show the same results as he got. """
Lie.
"""I don't doubt it. They were directed by Mann to perform the same flawed calculations that he did. """
Lie.
"""If Mann's data was correct, it should be consistent no matter how you look at it. """
It does. You just disregard the data.
"""If there is a flaw from one angle, the entire theory is flawed and must be reworked or discarded. That's the way science works. """
And you still haven't gotten that principle through your thick skull.
"""That is why journals are now rejecting Mann's methodology. It is not robust and contains errors."""
Lie. They aren't and it doesn't.
"""Using your Alarmo-Creationist logic, as long as something works once, but is shown to be a failure 53 times, it is still true."""
Using your denialist logic, you thought up something completely contrary to the findings of the entire scientific community while you were high on LSD, so it must be true.
The question of wether or not these huge storms are due to AGW should not deter us from looking for possible action to try and prevent such hurricanes from starting. I am thinking of finding a way to mix the layers of sea water with different temperatures that form in the Gulf of Mexico, so as to reduce the surface temperature and prevent hurricanes from starting. If the surface temperature of sea water could be reduced, the uprising hot, moist air could not develop into the funnel with its chimney-effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course. The idea that the dumbest of humans will eventually win the evolutionary battle is too sad to contemplate. On the other hand, perhaps by devolving to the level of all the other animals, the earth and its other creatures will survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a toss up.
I maintain the position that the denialists who post here regularly are professionals who are paid to obfuscate the science and make it look like there is an actual scientific debate going on. They are unable to actually cite any science that contradicts the climate change data, so they simply insult everyone in sight and cast doubt on the integrity of the 97% of climate scientists who believe that climate change is happening. It is always the same gang who come on here to mug whoever actually wants to talk about the science. What would happen if we just ignored them and actually talked about the science? Like Adolphe Faber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdolphe, I think that mixing the ocean layers would be an undertaking far beyond our present capability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI heard news reports about the question of how much Global Warming contributed to Sandy. The scientists were very cautious about attributing much of it to Global Warming, but then said that, yes, the warmer ocean contributed, the Arctic icecap melting contributed to the change in the jet stream that prevented Sandy from moving straight north. Obviously the 1 foot rise of sea level in the past century along the coast made everything worse, and was caused directly by global warming. The winter storm that collided with Sandy was also affected by the Arctic warming. The only big factor that had no connection with Global Warming was the Full Moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe it's the perfect combination of stupidity,immaturity and ignorance groomed by a self aggrandising ego that cause the flat earthers to post here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said "Those who don't believe in man made climate change should be tried at Nuremberg ...?" I can't find it anywhere on the Internet except in your comment. Absurd quote! It should read "Those who don't believe in man made climate change are complete fools."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is hurricane data from the last 61 years. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/images/2011-Landfalling-Hurricanes-11x17.pdf This shows a dearth of hurricanes in the past decade, and perhaps a return to the pattern of the 50's - much more severe and frequent. There have been 61 as bad, or worse than Sandy in 61 years. Regardless, common sense dictates people NOT live in or near these hurricane "bullseyes", and for governments to help them rebuild there is sheer madness. Instead, help them relocate. If you live in a low-lying area, move. It's common sense regardless of the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is evil, right-wing propaganda. What about the twenty million people in Bangladesh who can't move due to economic hardship and the fact that most of their country is near sea level? Should they just be drowned?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, if there has been a dearth of hurricanes in the past decade, then I am a Greek storm spirit. Did you sleep through 2005?
@ Greenmind: Mixing ocean layers of the Gulf of Mexico in order to reduce the surface temperature should be possible e.g by means of compressed air injected through a pipe going down close to the bottom. The bubbles rising upwards might be enough, after a number of days, to mix the layers sufficently to reduce the surface temperature below the critical point where a hurricane could form. Some time ago a similar method has been used to extract lethal CO2 from an African lake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Adolphe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be interested in knowing how big that African lake is. The Caribbean is hundreds of times bigger than the biggest lakes on earth. I also think you can't just do it once. The sun keeps shining, so you would also have to keep doing it. That would take a lot of energy.
Even if you were successful, it would only be a temporary measure. The water down below would become warmer, and so you would have to start mixing the water farther down to accomplish the job. And then even farther down, and farther, until the entire Caribbean is totally mixed. But then most hurricanes start in the Atlantic Ocean. Do you mix that too?
This plan also does nothing to combat ocean acidification.
It seems easier to just stop emitting carbon dioxide and switch to solar energy, wind energy, and the best technique of all, conservation.
15. LarryW
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to rodestar99
You are correct. If the ocean temperature was not as warm as it was then Sandy would not have been as powerful as it was. But there is a problem with saying that global warming must necessarily have had something to do with it.
What made Sandy dangerous was the cold. Two unusually cold weather systems collided with it giving it more energy and power. Had it not been so cold we wouldn't even be talking about Sandy because it would have stayed out to sea like almost all the other tropical storms at this time of year.
I am reading that the conjecture is now being advanced that it was unusually cold because the arctic is warming leaving nowhere for the cold weather to go but south into the Atlantic seaboard to meet up with hapless tropical storms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO.K. I suppose people can believe that sort of thing if they want to.
Yes, people who work for the big fossil fuel companies or apologise for them and deny climate change presumably want to keep hold of power, and possibly also they're lazy - thinking is hard work, and only some of us enjoy that kind of hard work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am genuinely interested in why some people who are intelliegnt enough to know better still choose to close their minds. Don't they have any children whose future they care about? Don't they care about anybody else's children?
And we also need to understand how come some people learn to be so addicted to power that they ignore what's right.
And we need to understand how some people learn to be mentally and morally (as well as physically) lazy.
Does anybody reading these posts know of any studies by psychologists which might answer these questions?
I'm seriously interested in these questions, because I can't help wondering whether we will only manage to stop (or at least slow down) climate change - and other damage to the Earth and human civilisation - if we understand what motivates the people who want to carry on the destruction as usual.
Greed is powerful. That's all I'm saying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a discussion that may get to one root (out of many) of the problem: "How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm
to IslandGardener, you asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anybody reading these posts know of any studies by psychologists which might answer these questions?
You might start here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopaths-teach-us-about-how-to-succeed
to northernguy, regarding the issue of more cold air masses due to warming.
Consider what happens to any system that is being moved out of equilibrium. Until it reaches a new equilibrium, the system is highly chaotic.
Lastly, regarding Sandy and Global Warming: The discussion is about Sandy, a relatively local weather event, and global climate change. Weather is local, climate is global. They are related but they are not the same. Global warming can certainly cause local weather that results in lower than normal temeratures, or higher precipitation (rain, snow). You cannot and should not tie Sandy directly to Global Warming. It's not that simple.
Enjoy.
edprochak writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.....to northernguy, regarding the issue of more cold air masses due to warming.
Consider what happens to any system that is being moved out of equilibrium. Until it reaches a new equilibrium, the system is highly chaotic.......
What you say is true. But the question is when or where was there a state of equilibrium in the weather system? For that matter what did it look like?
Hurricane develops in force fields. To try to calculate the possibility of making noise in the flow of the air mass. These may include: thermal effects (explosions directed), the volume of air frost, acoustic impact. If a hurricane to break on the set smaller, the total power can be reduced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this