backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by TheSpaniard.. on Jan 22 at 8:27 AM

Cold periods had fewer storms, natural ocean cycles the largest cause of hurricane variability.

I've always been skeptical of the view that global warming leads to stronger hurricanes. The argument behind it seems overly simplistic -- hurricanes feed off warm water, so warmer sea surface temperatures will lead to more frequent and powerful storms.

Elsewhere in our solar system, the exact opposite seems true. Blisteringly hot Venus, for instance, seems to have extremely weak storm activity, whereas icy Jupiter has massive hurricanes that last centuries, large enough to swallow the entire earth several times over. This is only suggestive rather than conclusive, but clearly there's more to storm activity than just raw temperature.

Basic thermodynamics helps to explain why. Storms are essentially large heat engines. It's not temperature that drives a heat engine, but differences in temperature. Global warming, which warms the poles more than the equator, would seem to decrease the latitude-based differential that helps drive a hurricane's rotational energy.

So went my pet theory, at least— but no hard data supported it.

However, the other side had no hard data either. While climate modelers claimed global warming might strengthen storms, actual hurricanologists were adamant that no actual evidence existed. Some pointed to research on wind shear, which suggested that a warmer climate would reduce the conditions that allow hurricanes to form, despite warmer surface water.

In 2005, one hurricanologist, Emmanuel Kerry, broke ranks and claimed to have actual proof that global warming increased hurricanes. For this, Time Magazine quickly named him "Man of the Year". However, last year Kerry publicly recanted his view, admitting that his earlier work was flawed.

With Kerry's renunciation, hurricane scientists were unanimous in their view that global warming wouldn't lead to measurably stronger storms.

But could it do the reverse? Could global warming actually reduce hurricane activity? A pair of Chinese researchers now says this very well may be true, at least for some parts of the earth.

The researchers, using a new branch of science they call "paleotempestology", looked backwards through several thousand years of the earth's history. Using sedimentary deposits, core samples from caves, and other geological proxies, along with documented historical records of hurricane landfalls, they built the longest record of hurricane activity ever constructed. They then correlated it to the varying temperature at each period..

On the global level, the researchers found no link between climate and hurricane activity. Surprisingly, though, cold periods such as the Little Ice Age had the most hurricanes, at least in some regions, a result the team said "begs adequate explanation".

However, the study found a strong link between natural patterns such as El Nino and hurricanes, a clear pattern of rising and falling activity on decadal time scales. These oscillations, known as "ENSO", tended to suppress and enhance hurricanes on a regular cycle, with the cooler "la Nina" years having the most activity.

The research was published in the Chinese Science Bulletin, and can be viewed here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By tookablighty on 1/16/2009 4:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
before you say 'we don't have many guns', per capita we have more than the U.S
Then you certainly dont have stronger gun laws then places like DC, where owning a gun is basically impossible. So much for that argument.

quote:
The second amendment is outdated, I see no reason to own a gun other than keeping it in your house as protection
Then you don't understand why it was put there in the first place. It has nothing to do with protecting your house from burglers. Its there to protect you from the government. If no one has a gun, the government can do whatever it wants, constitution or not.

What's the first thing Hitler did when he seized power in Germany? Used the gun registration lists to round up all the guns. Then who could say no to him? Nobody.

Lets say Obama won the election and Bush refused to step down. Say most of the generals decided to say the electrion didn't count and they supported Bush. What then? Think it cant happen? Open your blinking eyes. It happens every year in some country somewhere around the world.


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By omnicronx on 1/19/2009 10:09:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then you certainly dont have stronger gun laws then places like DC, where owning a gun is basically impossible. So much for that argument.
I don't see how this is relevant. If you can freely get a gun from any of the surrounding areas, you still have access to weapons. That's like banning pot from Amsterdam, but leaving it legal throughout the rest of the Holland. The abundance of the illegal product in the surrounding area, more than makes up for the ban.
quote:
Then you don't understand why it was put there in the first place. It has nothing to do with protecting your house from burglers. Its there to protect you from the government. If no one has a gun, the government can do whatever it wants, constitution or not.
You make this statement as though no other country on earth exists. If you statement was true, then how on earth do other countries get along without the need for guns, England for example does not allow the use of ANY guns.
quote:
What's the first thing Hitler did when he seized power in Germany? Used the gun registration lists to round up all the guns. Then who could say no to him? Nobody.
Time and time again, these accusations have been proven false. The German government registered guns but did not take them away from the people. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-...

Gun registration was not passed by Hitler but by the previous German government, the speeches about him supposedly re leaving weapons from those on the registry is no more than a myth, most of which circulated by books written by 'pro-gunmen'. (none of the facts line up). There were more stringent gun laws past in 1938 but most of those were to keep guns out of the hands of jews and non German citizens, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

It is also well known that Hitler would disarm any of the nations it took over, this helped to stop any uprisings before they began, (or in the case of an uprising, having the ability to easily control it i.e see Warsaw)
quote:
Lets say Obama won the election and Bush refused to step down. Say most of the generals decided to say the electrion didn't count and they supported Bush. What then? Think it cant happen? Open your blinking eyes. It happens every year in some country somewhere around the world.
Name a first world Nation that this has happened too in the last 100 years. Furthermore I am not saying there should be a ban on guns in general, I 100% disagree the ability to have guns in public, and perhaps handguns in general. Even with your rant about the government taking over, what good is a close range handgun going to do you when the military has rifles. You will gun gunned down faster than those without weapons.


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By tookablighty on 1/19/2009 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't see how this is relevant
Its relevant because guns are 18th century tech. You can't ban them. Pass a law in any area (even a whole country) and all you do is ensure that criminals will have guns and ordinary people won't.

quote:
If you statement was true, then how on earth do other countries get along without the need for guns/ England for example does not allow the use of ANY guns.
They get along the same way Cuba, China, Russia, Germany, Chile, Nicaruaga and a zillion other countries do. They deal with having brutal dictators take over every now and then. It's been a few hundred years since it happened in England, but don't think it won't happen again eventually.

quote:
Gun registration was not passed by Hitler but by the previous German government
Yes, and Hitler took advantage of it.

quote:
but most of those were to keep guns out of the hands of jews
If you were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, wouldn't you have wanted a gun? Might have stopped a Holocaust if 6 million Jews had been properly armed huh?


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By omnicronx on 1/20/2009 2:13:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its relevant because guns are 18th century tech. You can't ban them. Pass a law in any area (even a whole country) and all you do is ensure that criminals will have guns and ordinary people won't.
Stop making baseless statements! What evidence do you have to support this without dating back 300 years? If anything there are examples of countries today that get along fine without guns, for example there as a grand total of 51 gun related deaths in England for the entire year.

Meanwhile the USA averages around 25-30 thousand gun related deaths EACH YEAR! There are also on average around 70 thousand non fatal gun related injuries each year. This means on average 1 in every 3000 Americans are involved in a shooting in which someone is killed or injured each year. Do you realize how ridiculous this stat is? For reference, on average 80 people die from a gun related death in the states each day! No other first or second world country in the world comes even close to this number!

quote:
Yes, and Hitler took advantage of it.
I really don't see how this changes anything. Your previous statement that Hitler took away guns from everyone was already proven untrue. Merely stating that 'hitler took advantage of it' means little to nothing. If a US leader chose to segregate against a single religion or race in the US and got the people on his side, everyone having guns is not going to help people of the singled out race or religion.
quote:
If you were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, wouldn't you have wanted a gun? Might have stopped a Holocaust if 6 million Jews had been properly armed huh?
You obviously have no grasp on how the segregation and extermination took place. The Hitler propaganda machine resulted in the support of almost the entire German population. Regardless if the jews had guns, the outcome would have been the same. Blaming the jews for many of the problems in Germany was one of the reasons that Hitler rose to power and was able to keep it, he had the country on his side. The Jews never stood a chance, guns or not.

Furthermore they did not have the support of really anyone at the time, Jews who fled to Britain, the US and Canada were sent packing, I think I read somewhere that between Canada and the US, less than 5000 Jews were allowed to enter North America. Many of those that were sent back ended up in concentration camps.

p.s There was only around 10 million jews throughout europe at the time (and thats an estimate), trying to make it out as though these people could have joined together as one and taken hitler down without true support of other countries is laughable at best.


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By tookablighty on 1/20/2009 3:09:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Stop making baseless statements! What evidence do you have to support this
Lots of countries ban guns entirely. But no country in the world has zero gun violence. That's proof enough. If you ban guns, only criminals will have them.

quote:
there as a grand total of 51 gun related deaths in England for the entire year.
But England tens of thousands of murders. You think banning guns stops violence? It just means someone kills you with a club, knife, or something else.

See my other post. The nations with the highest murder levels all have very strict gun laws. Banning guns doesn't make you safer. It means the criminals who own guns don't have to worry about you shooting back.

quote:
previous statement that Hitler took away guns from everyone was already proven untrue
Sorry mate, he took them away from everyone he wanted to persecute.

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938

Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.


http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-lefti...

Cheers.


By omnicronx on 1/20/2009 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lots of countries ban guns entirely. But no country in the world has zero gun violence. That's proof enough.
Congrads, you proved that you can never stop gun violence completely, too bad this is not the topic at hand. Never did I imply that you can stop gun violence completely, my entire argument is based on the fact that the US has more gun murders (per ca pita by a factor of 2) than any first/second world country that has implemented any form of gun control. 1 is larger than 1/2, now thats proof.

And before you come back and say once again that, 'only the criminals will have them' take this into account;
I live in Toronto and yes we do have gun violence, but out of the 20 or so people that die every year, perhaps 3 are not involved in gang/drug activity. If gun control means that criminals keep on killing criminals, then I am all for it. How many innocent children die every year in the US via a gun related crime? Just thinking about it makes me shudder inside.

quote:
Sorry mate, he took them away from everyone he wanted to persecute.
When someone says, as previously stated, perhaps you should have actually read what what that person wrote before making a comment about it.

From the post that your quoted comment was referencing:
Gun registration was not passed by Hitler but by the previous German government, the speeches about him supposedly re leaving weapons from those on the registry is no more than a myth, most of which circulated by books written by 'pro-gunmen'. (none of the facts line up). There were more stringent gun laws past in 1938 but most of those were to keep guns out of the hands of jews and non German citizens , NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
aka.. those he wanted to persecute..


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By makius on 1/22/2009 2:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for example there as a grand total of 51 gun related deaths in England for the entire year. Meanwhile the USA averages around 25-30 thousand gun related deaths EACH YEAR!


I don't mean to exonorate the US here or defend gun ownership; But to be fair there is 254 million more people in the US than England so to compare total sum satistics between the two really isn't fair. If you are going to argue the statistics please use a common denominator like x per every 100,000 people or something of that nature. Otherwise you are just skewing the facts. Thanks.


RE: Close enough for gov'mint work
By HrilL on 1/21/2009 12:10:27 PM , Rating: 1
All I have to say is most of the worlds acts of Genocide allowed to happen because of gun control laws. I'll post some of this link and give you the link http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million Killed
Gun Laws
•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties

Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 20 million Killed
Gun Laws
•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession

China 1927-1949 10 million Killed
Gun Laws
•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership

Let us not forget what History has taught us. Gun Control eventually leads to millions of people dieing because they have nothing to fight back against their Governments with.

And to you gun hating people that can't accept the truth you'll be rating me down no doubt. Thanks ;)


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki