'Weather Makers' Seeks to End Climate Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Climate
AI Thread Summary
Tim Flannery's book, "The Weather Makers," aims to clarify the impacts of climate change and global warming, emphasizing the urgent need for action as greenhouse gas levels rise. He warns of an impending "global climatic tipping point," which could lead to mass extinctions and increasingly severe weather events, including more frequent and intense hurricanes. Flannery's research highlights the significant increase in the atmosphere's "energy budget," which correlates with the rise in extreme weather phenomena. He advocates for a transition to renewable energy sources and reducing carbon emissions to mitigate these effects. The book serves as both a scientific analysis and a call to action against rampant consumption and pollution.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
Adding fuel to the fire ( :wink: :biggrin: ) of controversy and debate over Global Warming,
Fresh Air from WHYY, March 22, 2006 · Discussions of global warming and climate change often center around anecdote and cyclical analysis. Scientist Tim Flannery seeks to clarify current -- and future -- conditions in The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth.

Flannery, an Australian biologist and paleontologist who says he had been skeptical of theories of global warming in the past, looks at the history of Earth's weather to help describe its future. And the picture he paints of the coming 100 years is not pretty.

As "greenhouse gas" levels rise, Flannery warns that the Earth is nearing a "global climatic tipping point," in which swaths of animal species will be lost to extinction.

The Weather Makers is the product of several years of research, as Flannery sought to identify large-scale climate patterns and trends.

Climate change has shaped evolution, Flannery says -- and fluctuations in weather are becoming more extreme. Since 1990, hurricanes and other storms have set records for their intensity and frequency, including the first South Atlantic hurricane ever recorded.

While it is intended as an antidote to the sometimes confusing claims made in the debate over the world's climate, The Weather Makers also has a practical side. Flannery offers guidance to his readers -- whether they're politicians, activists, or simply people who agree with his arguments against rampant consumption and pollution.

Among his suggestions: expanding efforts to derive power from wind, solar and other renewable power sources like geothermal energy; and acting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Australia, like the United States, has not signed the Kyoto Treaty against global warming. But last fall, Australia's environmental minister, Ian Campbell, said the debate on climate change is over. The Australian government owes it to the public to represent the truth, he said. Adding that global warming poses a serious threat to Australia, Campbell said he agrees with contentions in Flannery's book.

A contributor to the New York Review of Books and the Times Listerary Supplement, Flannery's other books include The Future Eaters and Throwim Way Leg. He also wrote The Eternal Frontier, an ecological history of North America. Flannery is currently the director of the South Australian Museum.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5293273

'Weather Makers' - http://www.theweathermakers.com/

Flannery mentions that the 'energy budget' in the atmosphere, which contributes to large extreme weather events, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Cyclone Larry, which just smashed Queensland, has increased about 60% of over the past few decades, and much of this extra energy has been manifest in the large Category 4 and 5 storms, which were the exception in the past, but which may become the norm if global warming continues.

Flannery takes on a critical columnist. :biggrin:
Here are the facts, Bolt[/color]
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Flannery mentions that the 'energy budget' in the atmosphere, which contributes to large extreme weather events, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Cyclone Larry, which just smashed Queensland, has increased about 60% of over the past few decades, and much of this extra energy has been manifest in the large Category 4 and 5 storms, which were the exception in the past, but which may become the norm if global warming continues.

:smile: The energy budget in the atmosphere is making storms more powerful? :rolleyes: Tim Flannery is full of it.
 
what is meant by energy budget?
 
I admit I like his site design.
Use triple-A rated shower-head
Which would make the pressure coming out of a firehose equal to that of a guy with a dead prostate.
 
Mk said:
I admit I like his site design.

Which would make the pressure coming out of a firehose equal to that of a guy with a dead prostate.

We have faucets that are low-flow. Problem is it takes 3x as long to get a good shower and consumes only 1/2 as much water/minute. Like i said before, put a big 5 gallon water tank above me and let it all loose twice on me and i'd be set.

Maybe this guys book/whatever it is addresses nuclear power. Doesn't anyone actually care about the environment?

Maybe someday a treaty will be signed by many dozens of nations that makes real, meaningful steps towards reducing pollution. (hint hint, i do know about kyoto).
 
blimkie asked:

what is meant by energy budget?

It strikes me as a snappy but misleading catch-phrase for the amount of energy in the atmosphere. Snappy catch-phrases are meant to catch your attention and stick in your mind, but of course have nothing to do with the validity of the idea. This book talks about the "energy budget" increasing, that is, an increase in the energy in the atmosphere from global warming, leading to more severe hurricanes, etc. To me, the phrase makes more sense when applied to e=mc2, as in an energy budget that must always be balanced. But that's just me.

I was handed this book by a friend the other day. I've tried reading it through a bias I formed from his grave and solemn synopsis of it. Apparently, I'm not doing very well so far.
 
It strikes me as a snappy but misleading catch-phrase for the amount of energy in the atmosphere. Snappy catch-phrases are meant to catch your attention and stick in your mind, but of course have nothing to do with the validity of the idea. This book talks about the "energy budget" increasing, that is, an increase in the energy in the atmosphere from global warming, leading to more severe hurricanes, etc. To me, the phrase makes more sense when applied to e=mc2, as in an energy budget that must always be balanced. But that's just me.
Hey Tojen, I think you're right. But isn't more energy coming in than going out? From the sun, more energy is absorbed into the ground and air than is reflected and radiated?

I was handed this book by a friend the other day. I've tried reading it through a bias I formed from his grave and solemn synopsis of it. Apparently, I'm not doing very well so far.
I would suggest giving it back. It might mess you up.
 
The author's fear, and the fear he projects onto his readers, is the fear of change. He fears the the rise in sea levels and the loss of species. He says we can stop those things from happening by acting now. He doesn't seem to realize that those things have happened in the past without our help and are going to happen again, whether we do anything about it or not. Reducing pollution won't regulate the Sun's energy output, or stabilize the Earth's rotational axis, or control the movement of the continents.

I'm in favour of stopping pollution simply for health reasons, and just to be a good global citizen. But even if we completely eliminated all pollution tomorrow, it wouldn't put a stop to the glaciation cycle.
 
Tojen said:
The author's fear, and the fear he projects onto his readers, is the fear of change. He fears the the rise in sea levels and the loss of species. He says we can stop those things from happening by acting now. He doesn't seem to realize that those things have happened in the past without our help and are going to happen again, whether we do anything about it or not. Reducing pollution won't regulate the Sun's energy output, or stabilize the Earth's rotational axis, or control the movement of the continents.

I'm in favour of stopping pollution simply for health reasons, and just to be a good global citizen. But even if we completely eliminated all pollution tomorrow, it wouldn't put a stop to the glaciation cycle.
There seems to be a "perfect storm" of events leading to catastrophic climate change. Increased solar activity is coinciding with an unprecedented increase in greenhouse gases.

Here is an article in http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000EFF32-205B-1476-A05B83414B7F0000 Using satellite data from 1979 to the present, that shows a dramatic polar shift in the jet streams, attributable to warming in the tropics.
 
  • #10
Increased solar activity is coinciding
Is it?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Sunspot-number.png
(sunspot number) From this, it looks like it is about to go up, but hasn't yet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png
(irradiance) From this, it is clearly going up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspots_11000_years.jpg
(sunspot count) Clearly going down.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/solar.irradiance/
(irradiance) Clearly going up. But spectral irradiance (no idea what the difference is)? Going down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
So it appears that the high incidence of solar activity is cyclical and was actually low in 2005, the hottest year on record.

Compare http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ to solar activity graphs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Skyhunter said:
There seems to be a "perfect storm" of events leading to catastrophic climate change.(snip)

There "seems to be". That's the operative phrase here. As Mk has shown, for every graph alarmists produce, there's one that refutes it. So where does that leave us? With personal opinions, and perhaps for some, an opportunity to capitalize on our fear.

Who knows, maybe Flannery is dead right. But I really object to his using the "fear of change" card to push his point, as if the Earth has been a constant, unchanging Garden of Eden till now, and as if we can somehow preserve it and live happily ever after.
 
  • #14
blimkie said:
what is meant by energy budget?

It's a nonsense term used by those who don't understand that Earth isn't a simple radiation in - radiation out system. Much of the solar energy received by Earth is used by what physicists call "to do work". Moving an object from one location to another is "doing work". One form of work performed using solar energy is the movement of water up from the various bodies of water to altitudes that can exceed 10 miles. Wind caused by differences in air temperature may move this water hundreds of miles inland before the water falls as rain or snow. This process involves one of the most significant ways that heat energy is carried up into the atmosphere. Water must absorb at least 540 calories per gram to evaporate. (Incidentally, most of the water comes from evaporation of surface water, but animals also release excess heat by evaporating water. Many animals release this water vapor by exhaling it. Humans use this process as well as evaporating water from the skin.)

Some of the heat energy released by water vapor when it condenses warms the area of the atmosphere where it condenses. Some of the energy is converted into radiation in the form of the lightning we see from the ground as well as above cloud lightning described by terms such as "sprites" and "blue jets".


Another major form of "doing work" involves plants. Plants store solar energy in the form of the chemical bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together. Some of this energy is used by animals to grow and move around. The energy that animals radiate is from the solar energy that had been stored by plants -- humans are produce a lot of radiation. Some of the energy is stored for long periods. Combustion of fossil fuels releases stored solar energy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top