In article ,
says...
On 2 Mar 2006 06:25:36 -0800, wrote:

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
Thanks for answering my questions about science. I now know, without a
doubt, the science is more about politics than actual science.

Now when I read a story about science, I will know that I can decide
to believe the story or toss it aside as pure politics.

Thanks for confirming this belief in me. I now have all the ammunition
I need for my belief system now.

I am glad I came to this group and asked a serious question and did
not get an answer.

Please drop the 'tude. No answers are guaranteed on
Usenet, especially by some unspecified deadline.
The number of people reading this NG has always been
somewhat limited and is getting smaller, the number of
people actually qualified to really discuss the science
is even smaller, and the number of people with time to
provide volunteer answers is less yet. Your questions
are valid, but when I read your long post it was clear
that providing adequate, thoughtful discussion would
take more time than I have during the week to write on
the subject. Since you couldn't wait for the weekend,
I guess you won't get a thorough answer from me. If
you want search for some answers to climate questions
yourself, I'd suggest reading _Plows, Plagues, and
Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate_ by
William F. Ruddiman, and two books by Brian Fagan:
_The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization_
and _The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History,
1300-1850_. Another book which I have but have not
had a chance more than skim yet is _A Climate
Modeling Primer_ by McGuffe and Henderson-Sellers.
As for your concerns about dangerous winds, I suggest
getting a weather radio with the automatic alarm feature,
keep a eye on the Weather Channel, and be ready to
take cover. Unfortunately that's about the best one can
do.

See. I do appreciate the answer[s] you offered. But my only problem is
that science people are quick to discuss and promote discoveries that
support the 'team'. I wanted someone to get down to real world
situations and discuss the macro scenarios. I could agree that pumping
large amounts of ozone into the air is a bad idea. My problem is that
most of these people are using computer models and deciding that the
model is accurate enough to make very broad predictions.

Also I have a problem with the assumption that very recent human
activities have created the climate problems. I find it hard to
believe that human beings, in less than 200 years, have created even a
tiny impact on the climate. Let's assume the earth is many many
millions [billions?] of years old. AM I to believe that the terrible
climate changes are a result of activities the are less than 0.0001%
of the span of time?

See, as a layman, I could say this is flat wrong. But as I am also not
a doctor, I cannot diagnose someone with a disease. But I could easily
look at a person and determine they were breathing without any medical
training. In fact, I could determine this if I had never went to
school or even knew how to read or write.

Even the most Ultra_Conservative person would demand changes if these
climate changes were truly the result of human activities.

No one will answer this simple question either: If humans have caused
harm to the climate in under 200 years, could we also "repair" the
damage in under 200 years?

Also people talk about hurricanes a lot. My thing is that people never
mention the fact that more people than ever before live on the gulf
and eastern coastlines. Katrina would have been a small story if so
many people didn't live in large cities along the coastline. It was a
Cat 3 storm, although serious in strength I do not see why it deserved
this much attention without mentioning the population part.

There has been an enormous amount of discussion about the growth in
population on the coasts. Everyone that I've ever heard from the
hurricane community has talked about the change in the threat over the
years because of population growth. Katrina would have been the
deadliest hurricane in the US for at least 35 years even without any
deaths in Louisiana. The large cat-5 stage off the coast helped produce
the storm surge that devastated the Mississippi coastline, which doesn't
have any particularly large cities on it.


I also have noticed that tornadoes get little attention in comparison
to rare events. You could take the example of katrina. The vast
majority of hurricanes hit in areas which are not the same terrain as
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.

Tornadoes killing dozens of people in the US are quite rare. In the 37
years since the Wichita Falls tornado of 1979 (42 dead), there have been
five tornadoes have killed 24 or more people. The most killed in a
single tornado has been 36. Typically, official counts of injuries from
significant tornadoes include only people admitted to hospitals.


We have on average 1500 tornadoes per year. We have even more
thunderstorms per year. These events get little attention even by
people who study tornadoes. No, I do not mean people don't study and
try to figure out these things. What I mean is we have a Hurricane
Center for this country but we do not have a Thunderstorm or Tornado
center. Why not?

The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center
(http://www.spc.noaa.gov) has been in existence for over 50 years.


Tornadoes can reach F5+ in intensity. I would say 318mph sustained
winds should gain more attention than events that happen about 4 times
per year.


The last F5 tornado recorded in the US was in 1999. Over the long run
(back to 1921), we've averaged less than 1 per year.

[deletions]

I've heard more than a few people say, "We don't know why tornadoes
form but that may serve a purpose we don't yet understand." My thing
is why let something that is deadly happen when we have people with
ideas on how to modify the storms?

At this time, no one's come up with an idea that's physically plausible.


We have seat belts and air bags in cars because people realized this
would 'modify' the outcome of a car wreck. If these were not in cars
then a 20 mph crash would kill most people. Now, 55mph+ wrecks
frequently do not injure much less kill the occupants.

Dams and levees are designed to 'modify' flood prone areas. Let's get
rid of them because floods may server some purpose we don't yet
understand, right?

All these things need to be addressed.

Yes we need rain. Every place on earth needs some amount of rain. But
could we just have plain rain? Must we have deadly lightning and winds
from a thunderstorm? Must we have deadly tornadoes? All we are in need
of is the rain. Why keep the bad things when we have the power to at
least begin to try a few attempts at weather modification?

Rain rates are a lot higher from thunderstorms than weak convection (or
isentropic lift) because of the strong updrafts. There are currently
attempts at weather modification, mostly related to increasing rain out
of thunderstorms and reducing hail. (I have no desire to get into a
discussion about their efficacy, but serious weather mod work has been
going on for a long time.)


Hurricanes need water above a certain temp to grow and strengthen.
Could we not at least consider a method to control the temp of those
waters? Remember, we're not talking about making the water 32F or
anything. Even a 3-5F decrease would be dramatic in the formation of a
hurricane.

Tornadoes could be decreased in numbers and intensity if the highest
cloud tops were heated to decrease lapse rates. We would still get
rain without the dangerous wind/lightning/toarnadoes. How would this
be a bad thing to do?

1. There's no reason to believe it would work.
2. It would take an incredible amount of energy to do.
3. If you warmed the troposphere enough to eliminate lightning, you
would significantly lower the precipitation. Rain rates from
thunderstorms tend to be higher than in other situations.
4. The law of unintended consequences.


I really think the opposition to weather modification by the
scientific community is nothing more the job security. If weather was
easily predictable and modified, then the need for advanced studies
would not be needed on the scale it is today. If tornadoes/violent
thunderstorms/hurricanes and tornadoes were to the point of being very
very rare then all these people would no longer be needed in the
numbers they are currently.

"If weather was easily predictable and modified...." That's a huge if.
Most of the opposition is due to people understanding the phenomena
reasonably well and seeing physically-ludicrous suggestions for
modification.


[deletions]

Carbon dating is another one I love. I have asked this several carbon
dating lovers before with no answer.

Take an object with an age that is absolutely known. Now carbon date
this object. I would be surprised if the dating was within 10,000
years. Based on this how can we rely on carbon dating. I hear all the
time about some "thing" being found that is 1 million years old, and
of course carbon dating was used.

No one would ever use radiocarbon dating for a 1 million year old
object. 60,000 years is about the upper limit when the amount of C14
left can't be distinguished from the background production level.


I even had a science teacher admit that carbon dating is really more a
theory than reality. He admitted that the error rate on this method
was likely near 75%, and he said that was being generous.

Apparently, he didn't know much about radiocarbon dating. It's much
more accurate than that (unless you're using it inappropiately, such as
to date something a million years old.) The Wikipedia article is
helpful on the accuracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


So the 1 million year old object is anywhere from 250,000 to 1.75
million years old. Precise isn't it?

If those were the error bars on the dating, you might have a point, but
since they aren't, you don't.




thanks for reading this. I know some or all may not reply.
I have nothing but the highest regard for scientists and their work. I
hope nothing I have said has offended anyone. If it has then I
apologize for not expressing myself better.

again, thanks.



--
Harold Brooks
Head, Mesoscale Applications Group
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory