Global Warming advocates will use this season

[soonertwister]

There is very little good scientific evidence that global warming is not occurring. It is also true that there is very little good scientific evidence that any global warming currently happening is significantly related to the activities of mankind.

There is scarely a more complicated system than our planet. Separate studies in separate disciplines are cherry-picked in support of or to refute evidence of the influence of man in the global warming debate.

But a look at the long history of climatology of this planet leads me to believe that if man is causing global warming, we won't truly know for hundreds of years. And the converse is true.

There are global realities of the influence of events scattered across many thousands of years that have had more effect, much more, upon our climate than any kind of influence that mankind has had on this planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

It's OK for people to conjecture and take a stand on either side of the issue. But for dogmatists to absolutely assert in either direction in this debate is irresponsible, and not supported by the kind of long-term multidisciplinary study that is needed before we can even begin to understand how much effect man really has on the climate of this earth.

I doubt that any clear answers will be found in my lifetime, in spite of claims to the contrary. Many supporters of global warming simply are unaware of the total scale of climatic change, and equate greenhouse emissions to catastrophe. It's entirely possible that much greater benefit would be derived from understanding the underlying causes of the great catastophic events that have occurred on this planet.

Those are the biggest factors in the shape of climate and life on this planet today. Rather than study only the effect of the burning of fossil fuels and charcoal, the release of persistent light synthetic particles, the destruction of rain forests, and the like; if we can broaden our science to cover all issues around this issue, it will be to the benefit of mankind.

Just as we might debate the usefulness of interplanetary travel until the day comes that we realize that the earth will not sustain mankind long enough for that possibility to become a reality, overlooking major long-term (10,000 years or more) causes of global change in preference for the current popular theories may rob us of the time to make the adequate preparations to sustain our species as far into the future as we would like to believe that we can survive.

And I would be incredibly disappointed if that was the case.

[Jim Hughes]

[quote="Windy"]Global warming is real and has been empircally proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even multinationals are beginning to look at mitigation strategies.

Would you please explain your rational analysis of this. And I want proof not just you saying it is occurring. Give me the hard facts.

[dhweather]

Something like this (From Dr. Gray's August 5, 2005 forecast)

8 The 1995-2004 Upswing in Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming

Many individuals have queried whether the unprecedented landfall of four destructive hurricanes in a seven-week period during August-September 2004 is related in any way to human-induced climate changes. There is no evidence that this is the case. If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past ten years (1995-2004), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (ie., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.). This has not occurred. When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995. In addition, it has been well-documented that the measured global warming during the 25-year period of 1970-1994 was accompanied by a downturn in Atlantic basin hurricane activity over what was experienced during the 1930s through the 1960s.


We attribute the heightened Atlantic major hurricane activity between 1995-2004 to be a consequence of the multidecadal fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) as we have been discussing in our Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for several years. Major hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been shown to undergo marked multidecadal fluctuations that are directly related to North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies. When the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is running strong, the central Atlantic equatorial trough (ITCZ) becomes stronger. The stronger the Atlantic equatorial trough becomes, the more favorable are conditions for the development of major hurricanes in the central Atlantic. Since 1995, the THC has been flowing more strongly, and there has been a concomitant increase in major hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Now that global warming discussion has been reinstated, I would like to contribute my theoretical assertions, warrants, and impacts:


The following post is NOT an official forecast and should not be used as such. It is just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. It is NOT endorsed by any professional institution including storm2k.org For Official Information please refer to the NHC and NWS products.

This is not a wishcast. This is a combination of unofficial forecasting and my experience with the nature of hydrocarbonic molecules.

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY TELLS US WHY SO MANY UNPRECEDENTED HURRICANES ARE DEVELOPING

DISCLAIMER: Though chemical properties provide an excellent background for the following, treat it as a newborn theory open to modification given the input of more germane scientific information regarding chemical properties of the compounds and molecules involved.



Enhanced methane content of the atmosphere intensifies storms, regardless of whether or not its emission is caused by man or nature. Recall that prehistorically prior to the production of oxygen by prolific cyanobacteria the atmosphere was filled with methane, ammonia, and H-2 and other gases and had too much violent weather activity to support anything more than the bacteria....



The reduced nature of methane renders it unstable, and thus in any reaction can give off quite a bit of Gibbs Free energy, its instability renders its Delta (change in) Gibbs Free energy in a reaction negative, since the Product energy-reactant energy < 0 since the product has much less energy than the reactants. Methane has powerful capabilities.



The impacts of Methane are felt in ACTIVE CYCLONE DECADE CYCLES ONLY (WITH REGARDS TO HURRICANES)....During inactive periods like 1970-1990 the atmospheric conditions are so unfavorable for hurricane development that not even methane can stimulate the development through increased warming or etc..!



The tremendous amount of Gibbs free energy as indicated by Delta G in methane reactions is due to methane structure. Methane is heavily reduced (not oxidized at all) and reduced hydrocarbons contain intense energy potential. Methane when it reacts is highly exothermic, meaning it is capable of giving off a large amount of heat (thus the products of a reaction involving methane contain much less energy, as that energy was released in the form of heat, which explains why methane oxidation reactions are SPONTANEOUS, the heat availabe in methane's constituent hydrocarbons are just BEGGING TO BE RELEASED!)



Methane is not the only dangerous pollutant out there. But I place emphasis on it here because it is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of implications for global warming.



This active cycle is MUCH MORE ACTIVE then any past active cycles in *recorded* history.


It's energy from the breakdown of methane and other hydrocarbonic molecules that increases heat and energy available to power a storm. Although this is not the only factor, it certainly plays an important role in exacerbating the impacts of other deleterious hurricane-intensifying factors (Oscillations, Solar Energy, Ionospheric Conductivity and Oceanic Coupling, etc.).

-Theory by Tampa Bay Hurricane is Copyrighted 2005.

[Jim Hughes]

I am referring to the term beyond a reasonable doubt. We sentence people to death by using the term beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a bunch of hogwash to suggest that global warming is occurring beyond a reasonable doubt. This is pure nonsense. Could it be occurring ? Yes ....Do we know for sure ? No

This is the masses moving with the master. This is all science does any more. They follow the beat....30 years ago we were told by almost everyone that we were entering an ice age. What happened to that outlook people. These were climatologists saying this. Maybe even some of the same people.


Jim

[x-y-no]

Global warming is real and has been empircally proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even multinationals are beginning to look at mitigation strategies.

Would you please explain your rational analysis of this. And I want proof not just you saying it is occurring. Give me the hard facts.

I sure would prefer to concentrate on active tropical systems while we have them ... but maye we can have this discusson in depth in the next quiet stretch

Meanwhile, you can find a pretty comprehensive history of the global warming hypothesis here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

[Jim Hughes]

Global warming is real and has been empircally proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even multinationals are beginning to look at mitigation strategies.

Would you please explain your rational analysis of this. And I want proof not just you saying it is occurring. Give me the hard facts.

I sure would prefer to concentrate on active tropical systems while we have them ... but maye we can have this discusson in depth in the next quiet stretch

Meanwhile, you can find a pretty comprehensive history of the global warming hypothesis here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

Well it is quiet right now. The last I heard Irene was just that.... Irene.. I have read numerous papers regarding the subject matter and I have always straddled the fence.

Although lately I must admit I have leaned slightly and I mean just very slightly toward the skeptics. Mind you I am not saying that precautions should not be taken but there is more and more evidence every day about the solar connection.

This is the first time in years that I have steadily been around a meteorological forum and I have been shocked by how little is known about this subject matter. The absence of this subject, in discussions about climatology, tells me that we took a left when we should have taken a right.

I sincerely hope that the colleges are still not leaving this out. This is not some fictitious made up relationship. These things are occurring right before our eyes. Read the research papers. They are numerous now.

It should not have taken a well read up long term weather forecaster (With no degree) to point these relationships out. How can anyone have a legitimate discussion about global warming if you have never even read up on the effects of space weather. I have read up on BOTH SIDES.


Jim

[x-y-no]

Well it is quiet right now. The last I heard Irene was just that.... Irene..

What Irene is is an active tropical system. One which may threaten the EC

There's also more to look at in terms of possible cyclogenesis ... and then I do have work to do as well.

I have read numerous papers regarding the subject matter and I have always straddled the fence.

Although lately I must admit I have leaned slightly and I mean just very slightly toward the skeptics. Mind you I am not saying that precautions should not be taken but there is more and more evidence every day about the solar connection.

This is the first time in years that I have steadily been around a meteorological forum and I have been shocked by how little is known about this subject matter. The absence of this subject, in discussions about climatology, tells me that we took a left when we should have taken a right.

Well, you should have been here in the off season. We had some discussions back then. But I, at least, am here primarily to discuss tropical weather.

I sincerely hope that the colleges are still not leaving this out. This is not some fictitious made up relationship. These things are occurring right before our eyes. Read the research papers. They are numerous now.

It should not have taken a well read up long term weather forecaster (With no degree) to point these relationships out. How can anyone have a legitimate discussion about global warming if you have never even read up on the effects of space weather. I have read up on BOTH SIDES.


Jim

Don't know if this was to my address, but I have read and discussed plenty on the influence of solar variability on climate.

Jan

ps: I hadn't actually checked out the AIP climate change history site before - dig around enough and you'll find my dad in there. Some of those names are a blast from the past, too. I hadn't thought about Cesare Emiliani in years, but I remember him coming over and drinking all our brandy and hitting on my mom while my dad was out at sea.

[dhweather]

I vote we talk global warming after Christmas - when it's REALLY slow.

[HurricaneBill]

I vote we talk global warming after Christmas - when it's REALLY slow.

But that's when the southern hemisphere basins are active!