Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

'Weather Makers' Seeks to End Climate Debate

  1. Mar 22, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Adding fuel to the fire ( :wink: :biggrin: ) of controversy and debate over Global Warming,

    '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
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 22, 2006 #2
    :rofl: The energy budget in the atmosphere is making storms more powerful? :rolleyes: Tim Flannery is full of it.
  4. Mar 23, 2006 #3
    what is meant by energy budget?
  5. Mar 23, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    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.
  6. Mar 24, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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).
  7. Mar 27, 2006 #6
    blimkie asked:

    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.
  8. Apr 1, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    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 would suggest giving it back. It might mess you up.
  9. Apr 1, 2006 #8
    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.
  10. May 26, 2006 #9
    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 Scientific American Using satellite data from 1979 to the present, that shows a dramatic polar shift in the jet streams, attributable to warming in the tropics.
  11. May 27, 2006 #10


    User Avatar

    Is it?
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Sunspot-number.png [Broken]
    (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 [Broken]
    (irradiance) From this, it is clearly going up

    (sunspot count) Clearly going down.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/solar.irradiance/ [Broken]
    (irradiance) Clearly going up. But spectral irradiance (no idea what the difference is)? Going down.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. May 27, 2006 #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/ [Broken]to solar activity graphs.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  13. May 28, 2006 #12


    User Avatar

  14. Jul 13, 2006 #13
    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.
  15. Jul 15, 2006 #14
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook