Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 01:50am PT
|
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 02:19am PT
|
Thanks, Ed! It sounds as though a fusion reactor would be fairly large scale, in the tens or hundreds of megawatts if not gigawatts, and would require quite a lot of cooling water. Which in turn suggests that they'd be located fairly near large populations or industrial concentrations, and near large bodies of water.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 02:25am PT
|
Published casualty figures are completely unbelievable to my personal observation of several major disaster zones
Supposedly in the US hurricane Ike killed 112 people and 23 are still missing
Supposedly Galveston island was evacuated ahead of the hurricane
However I had friends who live in Clear Lake near NASA Johnson Space Center, who tried to evacuate and took 24 hours to make the normally half-hour drive north to Houston. The flooding from a direct hit would have wiped out everyone on the freeway and adjacent neighborhoods. There is no way that Galveston island further to the south could have evacuated under those traffic conditions.
After the hurricane, I spent most of a day driving the many long miles down the island and back. Nearly everything in that heavily populated area had been swept clean down to just the building pads. There is no way those many thousands of people made it out.
I can tell you similar stories about several other major disasters; including Katrina, Andrew, and the Japanese Tsunami. The published figures seem to be under-reported by at least an order of magnitude. At best the count is of bodies in the morgue, and a placebo estimate of those missing.
You have to see for yourself. You can't trust the press as anything more than entertainment.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 02:35am PT
|
Ed, the mining of tritium on the moon is sometimes given as a rational for establishing a base of operations there. Does that make sense to you?
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 02:50am PT
|
That's the JetBlue, uh, gate area. A friend of mine suggests renaming the airline JetSki Blue.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 02:54am PT
|
The thought is that the Lunar regolith soil captures large amounts of tritium from the solar wind, that could then be used for fusion power plants on earth.
I'm not an advocate of this, but it keeps coming up in discussions...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 10:38am PT
|
New in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (emphasis added)
Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923
Grinsteda, Moorea, Jevrejevaa
Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02).
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10101209542109.abstract
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 10:44am PT
|
You have to see for yourself. You can't trust the press as anything more than entertainment.
Can't really trust the internet either.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 11:48am PT
|
So Chiloe,
According to your abstract, this is indeed a common cycle that has been occurring on a regular basis. All based on the warming and cooling climatic trends that continuously occur on planet Earth.
In other words, nothing new here....
You could read the article. Figure 1b and the discussion seems to show that the number of hurricanes per year increase.
To estimate the trend in landfalling storm counts, we count the
number of large surge events greater than 10 units in 1 y, which is
roughly equivalent to hurricane categories 0–5. This threshold
was chosen as a compromise between looking at large events and
having sufficiently many events to obtain robust statistics. Since
1923 the average number of events crossing this threshold has
been 5.4/y, which would increase to 9.5 events/y by 2100 were the
best-fitting trend to continue (Fig. 1B). This trend is statistically
significant against a null hypothesis with the same power spectrum
as the input series (P < 0.02).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 12:17pm PT
|
You could read the article.
Chief could not even read the 141 words of the abstract. Nowhere among those words (nor in the article itself) is there any mention of cycles or recurrence. Those are just words Chief made up, and declared in a confident voice,
"According to your abstract, this is indeed a common cycle that has been occurring on a regular basis."
What does the abstract say? Well, I bolded the part saying
we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923.
And in the paper itself, Fig 1 makes clear that this statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events corresponds to the statistically significant trend in global temperature. When they write that "Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years," they are looking at a 90-year temperature graph (GISTEMP) showing that warm years have become far more common in the last few decades.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 12:29pm PT
|
I did.
Good, let us discuss the article. So you agree with there conclusion that it is going to be almost twice as many hurricanes 2100 compared to the mean for the last 90 years?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
|
Since Katrina (that is the example used), when did the Northern Hemisphere experience a "cold year/s" in order to compare the difference?
With that said, when did this trend of events actually begin?
I believe that their method can be found in the article that you said that you have read.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2012 - 06:07pm PT
|
Science is bullshit right? facts suck...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
How far will climate change go, and how fast? The answer could be "very" if the methane feedbacks kick in, which there are some signs they are starting to do. There's a popular misconception that climate change will amount to a few degrees bump to a new stable state, which underlies much political discussion but doesn't appear much at all in the science. I was reminded of this just now while reading Oct 19 issue of Science (emphasis added):
Life in the Early Triassic Ocean
David J. Bottjer
In the next 100 years, it is projected that Earth will move to a greenhouse climate state (1). The future ocean will not only be hotter but also more acidic and will contain extended zones with reduced oxygen (2, 3). Study of past periods of global warming helps to project what Earth and its biota will be like in this new state and what the journey to that state will entail. On page 366 in this issue, Sun et al. (4) show that beginning with the end-Permian mass extinction (~252.6 million years ago) and continuing for the next 5 million years, Earth's oceans were extremely hot, with stressful and commonly lethal effects on ocean life.
An ancient global warming event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) (~55 million years ago), has been used as a model for predicting the outcomes of current global warming. However, the PETM may have lacked the severity of the current rate of change (5). Sun et al. instead study what is perhaps the most severe biotic crisis in Earth history: the end-Permian mass extinction, when biota did not recover until almost 5 million years later (6, 7). During the Late Permian and subsequent Early Triassic, eruption of the Siberian Traps igneous province through coal and other organically enriched deposits led to vastly increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (6). Sun et al. show just how hot the oceans were during this interval and elucidate the lethal effects of this warming on ocean life.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 1, 2012 - 12:00pm PT
|
Gosh Chiloe, sounds like we will, in fact, be renewing our fossil fuel reserves.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
The great and powerful, all knowing Chef says:
Weather IS NOT Climate
cli·mate/ˈklīmit/
Noun:
The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
A region with particular prevailing weather conditions.
weath·er/ˈweT͟Hər/
Noun:
The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
Verb:
Wear away or change the appearance or texture of (something) by long exposure to the atmosphere: "his skin was weathered almost black".
Synonyms:
time - season - tense - climate
If we cannot even meet on equal ground, called language, then how much progress would any conversation have with such a fool?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 1, 2012 - 04:28pm PT
|
+1, +1 to Riley's thorughts ...
Note that corps are multi-national, they are not beholden to any one country.
Sadly, the Earth is theirs to plunder, and they have gotten very good at that.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 1, 2012 - 09:06pm PT
|
OK The Chief, you're so great as to not use lights or gas? Because if so, I'm not exactly clear of what your message is.
Do you eat? If so, do you know how that food got to your table? Because I'm here to tell you, energy got it there.
And by your definition, anybody who eats, and calls attention to climate chaos is a hypocrite.
Look in a mirror The Chief, and you'll be staring at a jackass.
So do me a favor, shut up when you talk to me.
In other news:
As nature pulled the trigger in mid-October, when a tropical wave left Africa and moved into the Atlantic and began to spin, scientists were able to do the short-term work of hurricane forecasting with almost eerie precision. Days before Sandy came ashore we not only knew approximately where it would go, but that its barometric pressure would drop below previous records and hence that its gushing surge would set new marks. The computer models dealt with the weird hybrid nature of the storm—a tropical cyclone hitting a blocking front—with real aplomb; it was a bravura performance.
In so doing, it should shame at least a little those people who argue against the computer modeling of climate change on the grounds that “they can’t even tell the weather three days ahead of time—how can they predict the climate?” But in fact “they” can tell the weather, and in the process they saved thousands upon thousands of lives.
And if I didn't make myself clear, The Chief, you are a jackass. And normally I try to refrain from calling names to the face of people I don't know, but in this case I'll make a careful exception.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 1, 2012 - 10:28pm PT
|
Wow The Chief. I'm a hypocrite, and you're a scientist.
Got anything else you want to sell us?
(I still think one of the funniest things I've read on this forum is when Ed enlightened you
to the fact that you didn't understand what you said you'd read, yet you still tried to
school him on it's meaning. Now that was priceless.)
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
As I said upthread, the insurance industry has already made up its mind about climate change and is in the middle of adjusting coverage areas, premiums, and policies to reflect that belief. Those changes are even happening in the companies which publicly claim to not believe in climate change - it's clearly a case of actions and exposure speaking louder than words.
Climate change - the insurance industry believes it. And they're going to make you either pay for it, or suffer the consequences alone because they've bailed entirely.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!