Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SubTropicRay

La Niña

Recommended Posts

SubTropicRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Considering the fact that El Niño was a COMPLETE non-event I'm not exactly holding my breath here.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter John

(bgl @ Mar. 01 2007,06:22)

QUOTE
Considering the fact that El Niño was a COMPLETE non-event I'm not exactly holding my breath here.... :D

That's speaking for yourself Bo. Severe and devastating droughts here in OZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

I would never imply that I'm speaking for anyone but myself! But the conclusion at our location is pretty clear. Last time we were "hit" by El Niño was early 1998, specifically from 01 Jan to 24 March. The period was very easily defined since we had perfectly normal rainfall prior to this period, and after this period.

During the 2 month JAN-FEB period in 1998: 4.12 inches/105 mm of rain.

This year: JAN-FEB, total 28.84 inches/735 mm.

(For comparison - average rainfall during this 2 month period for the last 11 years: 24.93 inches/636 mm.).

While I'm fully aware that there could be vastly different consequences in different, very distant, areas I also can't quite get over the fact that El Niño is described as an "ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific", and Hawaii, being closest to this area (not counting the islands in the S. Pacific) would seemingly be most likely to be impacted by this event, if and when it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Wal,

After posting the response above I gave this a little bit more thought, and realize I should probably add a little bit of explanation for my initial (maybe somewhat flippant) comment.

Simply from a layperson's point of view I've become convinced that most of what happens with the weather, short term or long term, is still completely beyond the ability of humanity to predict. And not only beyond our ability to predict, but also beyond our ability to understand. While I do believe that there's such a thing as global warming and that mankind probably has something to do with it, I'm also getting very tired of comments like "oh yes, the weather was very hot this summer so global warming & humanity is obviously responsible". The climate has gone in cycles for BILLIONS of years, and will continue to do so with or without our help. Even though it was before "my time" I know that the weather in northern Europe in the early 1940s had some extremely cold winters and very hot and dry summers. Of course no one had thought of global warming  back then, so people just used their common sense and took it for what it was - a cycle with cold winters and hot summers! There are probably short term cycles and long term cycles, and the long term cycles may run in the hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We have accurate weather records going back to the late 1800s, so it's probably a little premature to blame every little blip in the weather on global warming, or some other weather phenomenon. The fact that El Niño was a non-event here in Hawaii may not necessarily mean it was a non-event in other locations, BUT I remain extremely skeptical, which I think is healthy, since it seems that most people who are into weather forecasting usually have no better than a 50-50 chance of actually predicting what's going to happen. And I can lock myself in my closet and achieve a 50% success rate! The dry weather in Australia MAY have been because of El Niño, but who really knows!? Maybe it happened for other reasons? Just because an El Niño was predicted, and there's very dry weather somewhere doesn't necessarily mean a connection between the two.

I just happen to believe it's important to be skeptical, because if it's one thing I have found to be true, it's that there are WAY too many unknowns with the weather for anyone to claim that they know how all this actually interacts.

Bo-Göran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

One thing that normally is not brought up is what is the effect of variations in solar radiation on global temperatures.  The sun has variations in it's output of radiation toward the solar system, and this could have a greater impact than greenhouse gases from what I understand.  The dynamics of the solar system are not only confined to our planet.  But, we are affected by them.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

Bo

How does an Irishman say "Amen" in Hawaiian?

dk

Funny, I bring up solar radiation all the time.....

Even fluctuations in cosmic radiation have large and increasingly measurable long and short-term effects on climate; like an increase in subatomic particulate in the atmosphere leading to cloud seeding and global cooling.  The folks that are doing this work are on the cutting, not the political, edge of science.  I also give Brasil a standing ovation for her energy-independence efforts, re: one of your previous posts.  We here in the US need to learn from your example; because, for political reasons, we have it all screwed up!  For example, we make ethanol out of corn. We are also the major corn commodity supplier to the western hemisphere due to the extraordinary productivity of our farm economy (with only 2% of the US population directly involved in agriculture).  From the farm to the pump, it takes us 1 gallon (4 litres) of petroleum to make 1.3 gallons of ethanol.  Even this isn't a fair statement, because ethanol is such a poor fuel substitue for gasoline, octane-wise, that much of even the 0.3 gallon benefit is lost due to decreased mileage per gallon.

There is a side effect of all this US ethanol production, however.  Corn diverted from foodstuff commodity to ethanol production, for precious little benefit, has the direct effect of causing the commodity price to rise beyond what many at the very margin of sustinance can afford to pay.  More people have, are, and will starve to death because of it.

Great for Iowa (and Hollywood).  Meaningless for most of us.  Horrible for Honduras.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubTropicRay

There's a drought well underway here as well.  I have a feeling the upcoming hurricane season will not be another bust.

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter John

Well said Bo, it's funny this is being said as the other night at table tennis one of the guys was saying how the La Nina El Nino was never a part of our language,  when we were young (many years ago) there was always a drought or a flood or whatever and that was that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(bgl @ Feb. 28 2007,19:31)

QUOTE
" Just because an El Niño was predicted, and there's very dry weather somewhere doesn't necessarily mean a connection between the two.

I just happen to believe it's important to be skeptical, because if it's one thing I have found to be true, it's that there are WAY too many unknowns with the weather for anyone to claim that they know how all this actually interacts.

Bo-Göran

your last line of thought works both ways Bo ... the fact that there are WAY too many unknowns in the atmospheric equation is what worries me ... with all those variables i'd rather not be adding to the equation ...

 ... i'm pretty sure the folks in california don't want to hear anything about el nino next year ... whether it had anything to do with their weather or not ....

  also, i live in florida and definately listen to the weather man b/c when he says its gonna be cold he's usually not that far off ...

  just jumping in with my less than half cents ...

     bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JakeK

This el Nino year turned out to be one of the worst winters I can remember. It's odd too, because in previous el Nino years the winters have been mild and our area was extremely mild till the end of January then we had 21 out of 25 days without ever breaking the freezing mark. The cold did more damage than a-10 to -15*F occurrence would do.

Next year, I'm just hoping for an average winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunnyFl

(Ray @ Tampa,Feb. 28 2007,21:22)

QUOTE
There's a drought well underway here as well.  I have a feeling the upcoming hurricane season will not be another bust.

Ray

oh joy

more hurricanes

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

(Ray @ Tampa,Feb. 28 2007,21:22)

QUOTE
There's a drought well underway here as well.  I have a feeling the upcoming hurricane season will not be another bust.

Ray

Ray,

I'm suprised  your actually buying NOAA's hype on the LA NINA, and this year being a stronger hurricane season,because of LA NINA! They really NAILED the 2006 Atlantic hurricane predictions! ???   If it's just a gut feeling I  stand corrected! :D

Weather men and their predictions.

Correct me if I am wrong but last year 2006 (EL NINO year) was supposed to be off the charts for both number of named storms and their intensity. Well the predictions were a BIG BUST, completely wrong ,one of the lightest Altantic hurricane seaons on record!

And the straw that breaks the camels back, is 2006 was an EL NINO year. This year is turning to a LA NINA phase, and their saying we're doomed to a very active hurricane season. So which is it ,can't have it both ways. Are they saying we are prone to  more and stonger hurricane seasons in EL NINO years or LA NINA years? :o  I sometimes wonder if the guys proof read what they write?

I'm with Bo on this one, predicting weather even with all the latest satelites, computer models,and all the expensive tools at a meterologists disposal, is a coin FLIP! :;):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

(Wal @ Feb. 28 2007,21:28)

QUOTE
Well said Bo, it's funny this is being said as the other night at table tennis one of the guys was saying how the La Nina El Nino was never a part of our language,  when we were young (many years ago) there was always a drought or a flood or whatever and that was that.

Wal,

You know why it wasn't a part of  our vocabulary growing up?

Because no scientist at that time had requested,and been given a gazzilon dollar grant to study ocean currents, ocean temps, and it's supposed effects on our weather.

And if they give ya that kinda money, you better damn well come up with a catchy name for IT! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neofolis

(gsn @ Mar. 01 2007,04:42)

QUOTE
So which is it ,can't have it both ways. Are they saying we are prone to  more and stonger hurricane seasons in EL NINO years or LA NINA years?

Why not?  What's to say El niño and La niña years don't both cause more hurricanes.

Supposedly El niños cause colder than average temperatures in Northwest Europe and yet each year that there has been one the UK has had milder than average winters, with this year being no exception.  The UK MET office has spent all winter predicting close to average temperature for this winter, but with an increased chance of cold snaps later in the season.  It's been possibly the warmest winter ever and, whilst there have been cold snaps, no more often in February than January or December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

(steve 9atx @ Feb. 28 2007,21:05)

QUOTE
Bo

How does an Irishman say "Amen" in Hawaiian?

dk

Funny, I bring up solar radiation all the time.....

Even fluctuations in cosmic radiation have large and increasingly measurable long and short-term effects on climate; like an increase in subatomic particulate in the atmosphere leading to cloud seeding and global cooling.  The folks that are doing this work are on the cutting, not the political, edge of science.  I also give Brasil a standing ovation for her energy-independence efforts, re: one of your previous posts.  We here in the US need to learn from your example; because, for political reasons, we have it all screwed up!  For example, we make ethanol out of corn. We are also the major corn commodity supplier to the western hemisphere due to the extraordinary productivity of our farm economy (with only 2% of the US population directly involved in agriculture).  From the farm to the pump, it takes us 1 gallon (4 litres) of petroleum to make 1.3 gallons of ethanol.  Even this isn't a fair statement, because ethanol is such a poor fuel substitue for gasoline, octane-wise, that much of even the 0.3 gallon benefit is lost due to decreased mileage per gallon.

There is a side effect of all this US ethanol production, however.  Corn diverted from foodstuff commodity to ethanol production, for precious little benefit, has the direct effect of causing the commodity price to rise beyond what many at the very margin of sustinance can afford to pay.  More people have, are, and will starve to death because of it.

Great for Iowa (and Hollywood).  Meaningless for most of us.  Horrible for Honduras.

Steve

Steve,

I don't know if I understand well the cost calculation on corn to ethanol.  What are the differences between sugar cane and corn as to energy produced?  For the most part from what I understand here most of the energy consumed for distillation is generated by waste burned at the production facility, not from petroleum based generation.  Here there is a move to change to mechanized harvest methods of sugar cane to reduce pollution caused by burning the cane fields for manual harvest, but this will consume more fuel than presently.  This has the negative impact of reducing employment in a country needing jobs on the down side.  Brazil has a termendous amount of poorly used land already under cultivation and can increase bio fuel production significantly without cutting down another tree.   One of the things also happening is the conversion of part of the soy bean production into oil for bio diesel.  

I understand that ethanol as a stand alone fuel has poorer performance than gasoline.  But, is this the case when added to gasoline as is the case here.?  When the whole program started in the 70's in Brazil engine technology was not nearly what it is now.  With the new multifuel cars on the market here that burn gasoline, alcohol, and natural gas with no complications things have changed a lot.  As to performance I have owned ethanol powered cars and the performance of the engine was superior to that of gasoline, but that is not the milage.  And, from what I understand ethanol changes the need to put other additives in gasoline and does reduce overall pollution from the exhaust.  That is what I here, but I have not looked deeply into the subject though.

Are starving people dying because they can not afford corn from the USA?  From what I have seen in Latin America food problems come from poor distribution, poor land use, land tenure problems, and sometimes just shear laziness on behalf of the inhabitants.  

There is a story here in Amazonas about a guy from Sao Paulo who came to see about developing agriculture.

He came up to a guy laying in his hammock under a thatched roof shack by the side of the river on the Varzea (flood plain land).  Nothing was planted of any amount to support anyone.  The paulista asked him if corn grew there, the guy said yes.  He then asked him if manioc grew there , the guy said yes.  he then asked him if beans grew there, the guy said yes.  He then asked him if watermellon grew there, the guy said yes.  He then asked him if oranges grew there, the guy said yes.  Then he asked him, well if this is true why are none of these things growing here.  The Caboclo (guy from the country) answered him; well you have to PLANT them first.

Not that people are starving around here.  They catch enough fish to eat, and grow enough manioc to make meal from normally.  But, many of them are just plain lazy.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neofolis

I think I'd be lazy in that climate too, not that I'm adverse to laziness anyway.

I was wondering why the harvesting machinery would be fueled by petrol, surely it would make more sense to use ethanol/bio-deisel and keep things kind of self contained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(bgl @ Feb. 28 2007,19:31)

QUOTE
The climate has gone in cycles for BILLIONS of years, and will continue to do so with or without our help.

this subject has been mentioned in other posts also and it is an unargueable truth that the cooling and warming of the earth naturally will go on in the future forever more as it has in the past ... but this time is different from all of the pasts ...

  for the last 200 years mankind has sent hundreds of billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and at an ever increasing rate ... and for the last 60 years, which coincides exactly with the planets 60 year warming trend (since the 1940s) mankind has been throwing huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere ... from nuclear tests worldwide to all the nuclear plants worldwide which all give off small to large amounts of radiation on a daily basis  to the weapons we use today which all contain nuclear waste products which also disperse into the atmosphere ... and that is not too mention all the other unrelenting gases mankind uses on a daily basis which all go into the atmosphere ...

  mankind has thrown many more variables into the atmospheric equation all of which he has absolutely no handle on ...

   bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(Neofolis @ Mar. 01 2007,04:32)

QUOTE
.

I was wondering why the harvesting machinery would be fueled by petrol, surely it would make more sense to use ethanol/bio-deisel and keep things kind of self contained.

i also wonder why solar energy has been almost universally taken out of any energy future (well actually that is obvious) ... wouldn't it be a smart thing to start absorbing the suns radiational energy to create useable energy with it instead of letting the atmosphere absorb it? sun power can easily be turned into battery power, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunnyFl

(gsn @ Feb. 28 2007,23:42)

QUOTE
Weather men and their predictions.

Correct me if I am wrong but last year 2006 (EL NINO year) was supposed to be off the charts for both number of named storms and their intensity. Well the predictions were a BIG BUST, completely wrong ,one of the lightest Altantic hurricane seaons on record!

And the straw that breaks the camels back, is 2006 was an EL NINO year. This year is turning to a LA NINA phase, and their saying we're doomed to a very active hurricane season. So which is it ,can't have it both ways. Are they saying we are prone to  more and stonger hurricane seasons in EL NINO years or LA NINA years? :o  

No.  El Nino tends to put a damper on hurricanes by increasing wind shear in the gulf, and also causing the big Cape Verde storms to recurve before reaching the US.   So in an EN year, we should expect fewer landfalling hurricanes.  The stronger the EN, the more pronounced the effect.  1997 was a case in point.  Very strong EN, very few landfalling storms - only one, I believe, which was TS Danny in New Orleans early in the season.  (Btw, it is this increase in wind shear that tends to promote tornadogenesis in the gulf states.  The departing EN of 2006-07 probably played a role in the Dec. tornado that struck Volusia and the killer Feb. outbreak in Lake City.)

La Nina has the opposite effect, increasing the number of hurricanes - the decrease in wind shear allows them to develop, and there is less westerly wind as well.

The reason 2006 was originally projected to be an active year was because it is in this infernal "active" cycle we are currently in.  However, the El Nino developed quite a bit earlier than expected and wasn't quite as weak as originally forecast - so the resulting decrease in number of hurricanes wasn't anticipated either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunnyFl

And just for the record, I don't think of 2006 - or any inactive year - as a "bust."  I think of it more as a blessing.  :;):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trópico

No hurricanes in an El Niño year but plenty of nasty tornadoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

(SunnyFl @ Mar. 01 2007,07:29)

QUOTE
The reason 2006 was originally projected to be an active year was because it is in this infernal "active" cycle we are currently in.  However, the El Nino developed quite a bit earlier than expected and wasn't quite as weak as originally forecast - so the resulting decrease in number of hurricanes wasn't anticipated either.

Sunny,

My remarks were partially tongue in cheek,but not entirly!

Does "infernal "active" cycle" translate into HYPE?

We had just come off two years of very bad hurricane seasons. The media was hyping these hurricane seasons  to the hilt (somehwat like Florida SHARK attacks :laugh: ).The mood was, the sky is falling,the sky is falling and I think even the MET guys got caught up in this frenzy,and jumped on the bandwagon! They interpreted the information they had, and molded it to those dire predictions for 2006!

And just like you they ALWAYS have a reason WHY they were wrong in their forecasting (predictions),something they HADN'T anticipated CHANGED things! :;):

There are so many factors that affect the weather that IMHO  think it impossible to ever predict with much more than 50 percent accurracy,little lone get it right even close to 100 percent of the time!

Yes meterology has advanced with all ther tools, but even after a hurricane has formed, about all they can do is tell you what it is doing RIGHT NOW (real time). You can see it on the satelites, radar,you can know the wind speed,  barometric pressure(sond buoys). But, and it is a a really big BUT! They can't really tell you where it is going to end up going,until it's gone there! :(

They do perform a public sevice,in warning people of impending threats, so they aren't all bad! :D But I take all weather forecasts (forecasters) with a grain of salt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

(palmblues @ Mar. 01 2007,05:24)

QUOTE
wouldn't it be a smart thing to start absorbing the suns radiational energy to create useable energy with it instead of letting the atmosphere absorb it?

palmblues,

Just  playing devils advocate here.

And if we were able to harness ALL that solar energy, to the point that all that solar energy didn't JUST radiate back into the atmosphere. Pray tell what might that do to the PLANET! Do you know,who knows, I surely don't?? Maybe just maybe the planet needs all that solar engery radiated back into the atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SubTropicRay

Hi Scott,

La Nina has followed El Nino many, many times historically.  Forget the NWS records.  The chances are greater for La Nina now just because El Nino is wrapping up.

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Don,

Your little story about the guy from São Paulo reminded me of another joke. Completely off topic...just can't resist this one!

Bo-Göran

A successful American businessman is vacationing on a beautiful island in the South Pacific. Every morning he's down by the beach, enjoying the water and the sun and the relaxed atmosphere of this incredible place. But he simply can't get over the fact that most of the natives are just hanging out there, all day long, just talking story and being lazy in general. Once in a while a few of them will head out in a fishingboat, always to return with plenty of fish, some of which they sell and some of which they keep for themselves. So, one morning he can't resist the urge, and he strikes up a conversation with one of the local guys. "You know, what's wrong with you people is that you have no incentive and no drive to do anything with yourself. Instead of going out just one day a week fishing, you could go out 5-6 days a week. After a few years, you'd be rich enough to buy another fishingboat, hire some people, and then after another few years you could have a whole fleet of fishingboats and be really successful." And the local guy responds with "yes, but then what?". And the American says "well, that's the beauty of this. After working hard for 15 years or so, you could sell your business for millions, and then you could retire and just hang out here on the beach and enjoy life!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tomspalmsdotcalm

Ah, the old Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) debate rages on...

Personally, I am undecided and agree that some healthy

skepticism is warranted. On one hand, I think its a bit vain and

narcissistic of us humans to believe that we have enough influence

over Mother Nature to change the weather (for good or bad). On the

other, maybe there really are too many fossil- fueled vehicles.

It is reasonable to presume that the oceans and atmosphere are

not steady-state systems, thus variations, even repeatable cycles

are expected behavior. The question becomes: to what extent does

human activity rival Nature's? Take volcanoes, fer instance... A

recent article has some data on carbon dioxide emissions from

Kilauea, titled CO2: Humans vs. Volcanoes.

http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano...ch/000440.shtml

This seems like a lot:

"Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges

between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the

atmosphere each day."

...but keep in mind that CO2 is not the only emission. Particulates

and SO2 are also vented in major quantities. (I know, I'm downwind ;)

The article attempts to put this in perspective by comparing the

CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. the emissions from burning of

fossil fuels. Discounting major eruptive episodes like Mt. St. Helens,

Pinatubo, Vesuvius, etc. CO2 emissions from volcanoes would

appear to be insignificant, but let me put it a bit differently than the

article does. *Large* volcanic eruptions have historically contributed

huge amounts of emissions to the environment. Can human activity

match those levels?

Remember that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential part of the

cycle of life, palm trees (other plants too ;) take up CO2, animals

release it. One might argue that the above balance has been

drastically altered by destruction of rainforests. One might counter

that a healthy grove of Elais guiniensis exchanges CO2 at a rate

that might be similar to the exchange rate of the jungle. (I don't know

that for a fact, just speculating.) I also wonder about the CO2 rate of

exchange at the surface of the oceans. A small delta there would

add up over that vast area.

BTW, I used the phrase "fossil-fueled" earlier. Some published

research on the abiogenic origins of methane (also a "greenhouse"

gas) in the earth may dispute the long held belief that petroleum is

the result of eons of decomposition of dead dinosaurs, tree ferns

and palms. A theory on the abiotic origins of petroleum has been

put forward by a fellow named Thomas Gold. I cannot find the

original paper on this, but read it many years ago, very interesting.

We can discuss this on another off-topic thread if anyone is

interested.

aloha,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

T O M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A !

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(Wal @ Feb. 28 2007,21:28)

QUOTE
Well said Bo, it's funny this is being said as the other night at table tennis one of the guys was saying how the La Nina El Nino was never a part of our language,  when we were young (many years ago) there was always a drought or a flood or whatever and that was that.

Wal,

  i believe the reason 'el nino' and 'la nina' were not part of our histories growing up (me from the late 1940s-early 60s)

has something to do with the titles 'el nino, la nina' ... they were events that happened to the spanish speaking peoples along the south american pacific coast nations of the equatorial tropics only, so they named them ... now it seems, the oceans have warmed up farther north and south and so they have started affecting folks in the more temperate climates and now they are a part of our weather too ...

  b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(gsn @ Mar. 01 2007,10:22)

QUOTE

(palmblues @ Mar. 01 2007,05:24)

QUOTE
wouldn't it be a smart thing to start absorbing the suns radiational energy to create useable energy with it instead of letting the atmosphere absorb it?

palmblues,

Just  playing devils advocate here.

And if we were able to harness ALL that solar energy, to the point that all that solar energy didn't JUST radiate back into the atmosphere. Pray tell what might that do to the PLANET! Do you know,who knows, I surely don't?? Maybe just maybe the planet needs all that solar engery radiated back into the atmosphere?

lol Scott ... well i guess you can take anything to the extreme and it certainly wouldn't do anyone or any world any good ...

  (when i was a yute i use to enjoy takin it to the limit  :)

     bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(tomspalmsdotcalm @ Mar. 01 2007,13:22)

QUOTE
Ah,  *Large* volcanic eruptions have historically contributed

huge amounts of emissions to the environment. Can human activity

match those levels?

Tom, interesting article as it states that all the volcanoes on the planet produce 200 million tons of co2 a year as compared to humankind producing 23.8 billion tons of co2 in the year 2003 alone ... and that was four years ago, wonder what it is now ... wowzers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan_Tampa

Tom;

I  heard about abiotic petrolem and Tom Gold...on Coast to Coast AM, with George Noory, I think Art Bell was doing his weekend deal though.

In other words...on late night am crazy talk show.

Seems unlikely at best, but maybe.

Also - many of the statics used to show global warming are...get ready...fantasy.  They omit "outliers" which should have been present.  Also, volcano eruptions end up cooling things off when big and ashy.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(Alan_Tampa @ Mar. 02 2007,17:48)

QUOTE
Also - many of the statics used to show global warming are...get ready...fantasy.  They omit "outliers" which should have been present.  Also, volcano eruptions end up cooling things off when big and ashy.

Alan

Alan,

  i think one of the points mentioned in this thread is that there are so many variables to the weather that it is extremely hard to surmise anything factually ... as to statistics (i think thats what you meant) but statics is good too, as usual it always depends on who writes the article and who pays their salary ...

  your point on volcanic eruptions is correct ... i wonder, if a medium sized volcanic event like St Helens can cause world wide temps to drop, what does humankind adding 24 billion tons of co2 per year to the atmosphere, what does that do?

    bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

Don

This is a new one on me, but here's a little more evidence for your solar theory: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....ng.html

Bob

The older fellow in this picture http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/ says that the models which he believes say that an 100ppmv increase of atmospheric CO2 will result in a 0.2C increase in global surface temperature.  So, the claim that an 100ppmv increase with a corresponding 1degree C increase in global surface temperature within an 100 year time period does not correlate, therefore cannnot explain global warming as a cause/effect relationship between atmospheric ppmv of CO2 and surface temperature.  In Dr Gray's model, it would have taken 5x the "increase" in atmospheric ppmv of CO2 "since industrialization" to account for the current warm cycle if that were indeed the cause. If you care to follow up, see the "Weatherbrains" podcast I posted on another thread.  There, you can hear him explain himself.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

Don

As to your "laziness" post, it sounds like you're on board with me and St Paul when he says "if a man will not work, then let him not eat".  But the one hole in your laziness hypothesis is that to plant your own food you must own some land.  The folks I mentioned earlier may not even own the shacks they live in, much less a plot of land for a garden with which to feed themselves.

The picture you paint of a factory squeezing cane for sugar to distill into ethanol and burning the cane for fuel sounds funny to an American ear.  If that happened here, environmentalists would see the cane smoke from miles away and organize a massive protest to put scrubbers on the smoke stacks or get the factory off of burning the plant material and onto a "clean" fuel like natural gas.  This is not to belittle the way things are done in Brasil.  As I said before, we in the US have a lot to learn about being pragmatists and not political hypocrites.  http://www.progressiveu.org/133800-al-gore-the-fleecing-of-the-sheeple

Even though as I mentioned only 2% of the legal population of the US is engaged directly in agriculture, it is a massive, efficient, and mechanized affair.  Apart from some fruits and vegetables which do not lend themselves to automated cultivation, all major commodities are absolutely mechanized.  Whether "family farm" or "agri-business" everything from planting, fertilizing, harvesting, sorting, storing, processing, and distributing is done with machines. Most are petroleum-driven machines or vessels. And petroleum is the cheapest form of energy we have to move this chain.  This is why most countries which buy US agricultural products do so - they cannot, even accounting for the cost of shipping, produce the same crops cheaper themselves.  And there is nothing more true than the old expression, "money talks, bullshit walks"; or in this case, substitute "eat " for "talk".

There are a few exceptions; for example, the US subsidizes its own sugar cane production.  (Europeans, please read "sugar beet" for "sugar cane".)  This is a two-fold policy to reduce the commodity price, first to punish Cuban sugar exports, and second to give southern state sugar cane producing farmers a subsidy.  Cane, unlike what you may have seen in Brasil is a totally automated cultivational affair here.  Human hands never touch the machete anymore.  I'm not sure about the ethanol-producing capacity per ton of cane vis a vis corn, but I know we are capable of producing vastly more cane than we do currently.  I'm sure there is a political calculation here somewhere to push corn-based instead of cane-based ethanol, because if the market were there, the cane would be grown.  BTW, instead of being burned, the cane leftovers after being squeezed and steamed to drive out the last of the sugar are generally made into an animal feed admixture here.  FYI, cane is grown in all the "wet" areas of the southern US.

The other major commodity which the US still subzidizes is cotton.  Cotton is grown all over the "warm" areas of the southern and western US.  The subsidy of this crop has a more insidious effect. This one make US cotton so cheap that vast areas of the world, in particular sub-Saharan Africa cannot compete even though they need the cotton for their own industries.  The poor, even the land-owning poor, in places like Tanzania with ready seed, fertilizer, and labor cannot compete with US cotton exports which show up seeded, combed, and baled at the dock.  Beyond the fact that I believe in free trade, I think these subsidies are to our shame as they hamstring those who would otherwise be willing to invest in themselves and their land by growing this crop.

I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that the US energy and agricultural economies are monolithic and will not readily adopt ad hoc biodiesel or other fuel programs by subsistance farmers dumping their compost heaps into the common energy kitty.  We need some real solutions that will be, by definition, large.  We need to think of the consequences on ourself and others of knee-jerk reactions induced by Hollywood celebrities that may have more to do with fashion than science.  And we need to never be afraid to call bullshit.....

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Steve,

I did a little research on the web on energy use for producing ethanol and at least from what I found it appears that the fuel is has a net energy gain when used.  There is quite a bit of information, one of them is this: National Geographic Ethanol.  Here in Brazil the subject gets a lot of press.  The latest is the worldwide Ethanol producers club just founded with the USA and Brazil the leading members.  And, Bush's visit to Brazil next week has a focus supposedly on this subject.  Although there are lots of small farmers and land tenure is still a problem most of the cane production comes from large agro business farms.  Aside from the harvest these operations are quite mechanized.  Since labor is still cheap in Brazil there has not beem much incentive to switch to mechanized harvest.  But, especially in Sao Paulo state with a population of over 30 million pollution has been the incentive to cut down on the buring of the cane fields.  Brazil's push with Bush will be the lessening of trade barriers to the USA to allow Brazilian ethanol an entry point.  I don't know much about the subject but apparently sugar cane is superior to corn as an energy producer.  Brazil undoubtedly has tremendous potential as a bio mass producer due to the climate.  Brazil I believe is now the largest soy bean producer in the world recently bypassing the USA.  These are also for the most part agrobusiness operations with mechanized operations.  Unfortunately in the southern part of Amazonia they are part of the cattle to soybean cycle responsible for a great amount of deforestation.  Not that soybeans or other crops can not coexist with the tropical forest, things just need to be done different.  Converting standing forest to soy bean plantations is not a good use of the land in the long run.  But, there is a tremendous amount of under used land in the country that can be used much more efficiently.  More than likely a part of the soy bean crop will be turned into bio fuel or even converted to other uses for fuels.  There are so many soybeans now that the supply may be outstripping the demand.  Petrobras is now pushing the Bio diesel program, they are mixing bio oil in diesel on a large scale now.  Brazil is already the largest sugar cane producer in the world and uses a relatively small amount of the land area for this crop today.

But, bio fuels still produce exhaust and do contribute to the greenhouse gas problem.  They did not used to burn the cane waste here until they started large scale ethanol production.  Since you need heat to distill alcohol it became the best solution.  A distillary produces a lot of waste.  I believe that even with the burning of waste that some is also turned into animal feed.  And, I believe that a fair amount of electricity is generated as well.  As I have been looking around the information on the internet here in Brazil and elswhere there is a lot of things to understand.  I guess  I will take a further look to see what I can learn about the subject.  I believe that here in our region a lot of bio fuel can be obtained from native palm seeds and the use of degraded land for this purpose.  There is still a lot of distance between reaching the potential around us and where things are today.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Steve,

Some info from Wikipedia about land use for sugar cane in Brazil the whole story at this link Land for sugar cane - Brazil

Social implications

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassinations.

Some question the viabiliy of biofuels like ethanol as total replacements for gasoline/crude oil. One concern is that sugarcane cultivation will displace other crops, thus causing food shortages. However, these concerns seem to be groundless. Despite having the world's largest sugarcane crop, the 45,000 km² Brazil currently devotes to sugarcane production amount to only about one-half of one percent of its total land area of some 8.5 million km². In addition, the country has more unused potential cropland than any other nation. Some commentators, like George Monbiot, fear that the marketplace will convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starve and biofuels cause environmental problems. It is unclear how this would be different from the current situation, as most food crops are grown and exported to richer nations, and neglects the very real environmental problems that the burning of fossil fuels causes. The cultivation of sugarcane for energy production is only likely to increase as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and more expensive.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

I have a correction, the USA is still the largest soy bean producer.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

DK

All good information.  Keep us posted on what you find out.  We need some new ideas around here.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS Man about Palms

(bgl @ Feb. 28 2007,16:31)

QUOTE
Wal,

After posting the response above I gave this a little bit more thought, and realize I should probably add a little bit of explanation for my initial (maybe somewhat flippant) comment.

Simply from a layperson's point of view I've become convinced that most of what happens with the weather, short term or long term, is still completely beyond the ability of humanity to predict. And not only beyond our ability to predict, but also beyond our ability to understand. While I do believe that there's such a thing as global warming and that mankind probably has something to do with it, I'm also getting very tired of comments like "oh yes, the weather was very hot this summer so global warming & humanity is obviously responsible". The climate has gone in cycles for BILLIONS of years, and will continue to do so with or without our help. Even though it was before "my time" I know that the weather in northern Europe in the early 1940s had some extremely cold winters and very hot and dry summers. Of course no one had thought of global warming  back then, so people just used their common sense and took it for what it was - a cycle with cold winters and hot summers! There are probably short term cycles and long term cycles, and the long term cycles may run in the hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We have accurate weather records going back to the late 1800s, so it's probably a little premature to blame every little blip in the weather on global warming, or some other weather phenomenon. The fact that El Niño was a non-event here in Hawaii may not necessarily mean it was a non-event in other locations, BUT I remain extremely skeptical, which I think is healthy, since it seems that most people who are into weather forecasting usually have no better than a 50-50 chance of actually predicting what's going to happen. And I can lock myself in my closet and achieve a 50% success rate! The dry weather in Australia MAY have been because of El Niño, but who really knows!? Maybe it happened for other reasons? Just because an El Niño was predicted, and there's very dry weather somewhere doesn't necessarily mean a connection between the two.

I just happen to believe it's important to be skeptical, because if it's one thing I have found to be true, it's that there are WAY too many unknowns with the weather for anyone to claim that they know how all this actually interacts.

Bo-Göran

Hear!, Hear!

Bo for President!!

(I know, he and Arnold or the Easter bunny...either of the scenario's can't work.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...