PDA

View Full Version : Are Natural Disasters Man-made?



Blutwölfin
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 10:56 AM
Folkish said here (http://www.blutundboden.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8633&postcount=4) :

Is it possible that Mother Nature is purposely punishing mankind for some reason? We have certainly had our share of natural disasters. The tsunami in southeastern Asia. Florida got slammed with 4 major hurricanes last year. Katrina has punished Louisiana and Mississippi to a degree that none had imaged would ever happen, despite all of the evidence contrary. Now another major hurricane is heading towards Louisiana and Texas, possibly to cause major devastation. Is Mother Nature mad? Or perhaps is the earth just so overpopulated that natural disasters resulting in major loss of human life are inevitable?

Your opinions?

Blutwölfin
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 10:56 AM
I'm sure that all these disasters are kind of scream of help - or at least a natural way for Mother Earth to get rid off the things that harm her. Very interesting in this context is where these disasters happen:

1. Asia: Floods, typhoons, earthquakes.
And Asia is, as you might know, not famous for it's pollution control.

2. Africa: Droughts, menaces.
Same like in Asia and even worse: almost no pollution control in most of the countries.

3. USA: Hurricanes
Bush just rejected Kyoto - for he is afraid of losing his economic power. And, well, everybody know the image of US-Americans driving cars that use about 20 l gas on 100 km and stuff like that.

Gorm the Old
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 02:54 PM
Sheer superstition. The frequency of cyclonic storms along the Intertropical Convergence Zone varies cyclically. The last maximum comparable to that of today occurred in the 1940's. A graph of frequency of tropical storms plotted against year shows clearly cyclical variation. Inter alia, there is an astronomical factor involved in this. The magnitude of the excursions of the Intertropical Convergence Zone north of the equator is affected by the inclination of the Earth's axis to the plane of its orbit, i.e., the obliquity of the Ecliptic, which varies cyclically. The displacement of the Intertropical Convergence Zone affects both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in the same way. Tropical storms would occur in the southern Atlantic and southern Pacific (where they used to be called typhoons, from the Chinese tai fung = "big wind") even if these areas were uninhabited. Air pollution and global warming (which is also a natural phenomenon) have no effect on the formation of cyclonic disturbances in the southern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. according to climatologist Dr. Max Mayfield. The "desertification" of Africa has been going on for many millenia, long before mankind was capable of having any impact on the climate. So, it's unnecessary to sacrifice any lambs or virgins to Gaia to appease her wrath. It won't accomplish anything.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:03 PM
I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is a direct causation, but lest we forget that the whole of Nature is a living, dynamic organism.

All things are interrelated and man's actions are certainly not seperate from everything else. I believe that the slightest change or imbalance in the ecosystem may stir up enormous upheaval. To me, that's the logic behind the "Butterfly effect".

I remember having read somewhere an example of the simulation of the ecosystem with a first degree equation. Even though the overall number of calculations is inconceivable, the slightest change in a + or - sign in just one of the numbers will have a huge impact on the outcome of the equation.

Gorm the Old
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:20 PM
It is only our anthropocentric self-importance which leads us to think that our activities have any significant effects upon the operation of the major processes of nature. In the case of tropical storms, any evidence in favor of an influence of human activity upon their frequency and intensity simply does not exist.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:57 PM
It is only our anthropocentric self-importance which leads us to think that our activities have any significant effects upon the operation of the major processes of nature. In the case of tropical storms, any evidence in favor of an influence of human activity upon their frequency and intensity simply does not exist.
I don't think it is anthropocentric or exaggerated to say that some human activities are so massively destructive to the environment that may trigger a series of processes that may eventually lead to imbalances or changes in the ecosystem.

Think of ozon layer, oil blots, massive forest destruction, etc, etc.... :(

Gorm the Old
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 01:51 AM
Ostensibly, the hole in the ozone layer is supposed to be caused by chlorofluorocarbons used as spray-can propellants and refrigerants. The decomposition by photolysis of chlorofluorocarbons must release, not only chlorine which has the potential to destroy ozone, but also fluorine. No fluorine has ever been found in the ozone layer. This should not surprise anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of atmospheric physics. Tropospheric convection ceases at the Tropopause, about 48 km. above the Earth's surface. There is virtually no convection in the Stratosphere which overlies it. Yet, the ozone Layer is within the Stratosphere, at an altitude of about 80 km. Chlorofluorocarbons range in density from 3.5 to 8 times that of air. How do these heavy gases get up to the Ozone layer ? Convection MAY be adequate to carry them up to the Tropopause, but there is another 32 km for them to go to reach the Ozone Layer. Diffusion, especially of such heavy gases, is an inadequale mechanism to accomplish this. Most of the release of chlorofluorocarbons has taken place in the Northern Hemisphere. Why, then, is the ozone hole in the SOUTHERN Hemisphere ? The General Circulation of the Atmosphere permits very little transportation of air across the InterTropical Convergence Zone, which lies close to the Equator. In short, there is little exchange of air between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Therefore, if the hole in the Ozone Layer be caused by chlorofluorocarbons, it ought to have developed in the Northern, not the Southern Hemisphere. Some ecologists have claimed that ultraviolet radiation, entering through the hole in the Ozone Layer, has increased the risk of skin cancer in North America. Ultraviolet radiation travels in straight lines. Entering the troposphere through a hole 80 km. above the surface, even very obliquely, it would reach the surface in the Southern Hemisphere, NOT the Northern Hemisphere. Undeniably, there IS a hole in the Ozone Layer. A reasonable explanation for it has been dismissed but not disproven by advocates of the chlorofluorocarbon hypothesis. Chlorine is one of the more abundant consituents of the magmatic volatiles emitted during volcanic eruptions. Most of it is in the form of HCl (m.w. = 36.5, 1.25 times that of air). This chlorine compound (which contains proportionally MUCH more chlorine than a chlorofluorocarbon) is ejected from ther volcanic vent under high pressure and at high velocity and INjected into the atmosphere. It doesn't need to diffuse from the Tropopause to the Ozone Layer. It has enough momentum to rise that high and higher. Some ecologists claim that the "myth" of volcanic chlorine has been disproven. HOW ? Nobody knows the exact composition of the volcanic volatiles actually ejected in a major eruption. It has not been feasible to measure this. Volcanic eruptions are certainly a major potential source of chlorine in the Ozone Layer. It is more likely that the HCl content of the volatiles ejected in a major eruption would be greater than that measured in fumaroles and at the edges of erupting vents, rather than less.

Gorm the Old
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 03:56 PM
While I am at it, I might just as well have my say about global warming. Undeniably, there is such a thing as global warming. It has been recognized throughout much of the 20th century. Basically, there are two questions about it. First, is it abnormal or unusual ? Second, what causes it ? The answer to the first question is an unqualified NO. This is not the first, nor will it be the last episode of global warming. 7 to 6 thousand years before the present, global temperatures were significantly higher than today, sufficiently so that Scandinavia had a Mediterranean climate. Paleoclimatologists call this the Holocene Thermal Maximum. (Scandinavian climatologists used to call it the "Climatic Optimum" ; it was just that for Scandinavia.) There is excellent evidence for a much earlier Thermal Maximum, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal maximum, about 50,000,000 years ago. During the past million years, there have been at least four major ice ages punctuated by numerous short recessions called interstadials and separated by long (on the order of 100,000 years) interglacial periods During the interglacial periods, paleobotanical evidence indicates a climate warmer than that of today in the glaciated areas. As recently as 11,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet over 3 km. thick in the Laurentide area of Eastern Canada. By 7000 years ago, it had melted entirely. Now, THAT required global warming on a truly grand scale. The causes of all of the aforementioned episodes of global warming are unknown. If human activity is in any way involved in the present episode of global warming one (a very mild one compared to its predecessors) , how can we disentangle its effects from the major unknown causes of global warming ? Until we know what causes natural global warming, it is pointless to try to attribute present global warming to human activity.