Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
cycloneye
Admin
Admin
Posts: 146226
Age: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Debate among scientists about Global Warming vs Active Cycle

#1 Postby cycloneye » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:28 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10198616/

:uarrow: :uarrow: :uarrow: :uarrow: :uarrow: :uarrow: :uarrow:

Oh here we go with another debate about if Global warming is the main cause of the upward cycle of activity since 1995 or is the normal multidecal cycle.

My personnal take has been in the past years is that it's the normal active Multidecal cycle and not global warming that has sparked the very active seasons since 1995 except for 1997 when the strong el nino capped that season.However we have to look at the possibilitie that some effects from Global warming may haved enhanced the tropical activity.But plenty of reasearch has to be done to be more confident about being global warming the prime factor of the increased activity.

Ok folks I know that this kind of theme spark controversies so let's keep the debate in this thread about this very sound and in a manner in an educational way for all of us who may not understand some technnical things about this hot theme.
0 likes   

User avatar
linkerweather
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:59 am
Location: tampa bay area

#2 Postby linkerweather » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:53 am

I couldn't say whether or not the intensity is a factor of global warming but as far as increased activity, I say no, just look at the activity GLOBALLY; it has been LOWER than normal in other basins.
0 likes   

User avatar
Cookiely
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 3211
Age: 74
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:31 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

#3 Postby Cookiely » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:53 am

My knowledge is very limited but I just don't buy the global warming as far as the increase in storm activity. If it was increased around the world, that might make sense but not in one basin. Intensity is another story. Heat=fuel so it makes sense that the higher sst's would increase the strength of the storms.
0 likes   

HUC
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Basse-Terre Guadeloupe

#4 Postby HUC » Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:58 am

Perhaps the atlantic bassin where the annual activity varies more than the other bassins,is more sensitive to the global warning???????
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

#5 Postby MGC » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:34 pm

Since the summer of 1980, which provoked this global warming debate, scientist have argued the pros and cons of global warming. Personally, I think we are just in a interglacial warm period. My primary argument against man made global warming is the 1930's. I challenge any of you to go back to the record books of the 1930's. Notice that the majority of record highs set back during that period. Surely atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were no where close to todays values, humanity had not created heat islands by paving half of the country side and how many tropical storms formed in 1933? I would not venture to bet that several tropical cyclones went undetected because there were not weather satellites watching the oceans 24/7. Global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated on Americans by a bunch of kook environmentalist who have a sympathetic ear in the media. Keep driving your SUVs and your thermostatic set at 75 in the winter.....MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
thunderchief
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:03 pm

#6 Postby thunderchief » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:03 pm

the fraction of a degree increase in SST that might be hypothetically attributed to global warming was the cause of 3 cat 5s this year...

right...
0 likes   

HUC
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Basse-Terre Guadeloupe

#7 Postby HUC » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:38 pm

I hope you are right MGC,i hope sincerly,because i don't want to see any more desasters over our little earth which is probably the only one with human being in the whole universe!!!!This not a politic discussion,this IMO a fondamental question....
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#8 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:08 pm

MGC wrote:Since the summer of 1980, which provoked this global warming debate, scientist have argued the pros and cons of global warming. Personally, I think we are just in a interglacial warm period. My primary argument against man made global warming is the 1930's. I challenge any of you to go back to the record books of the 1930's. Notice that the majority of record highs set back during that period. Surely atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were no where close to todays values, humanity had not created heat islands by paving half of the country side and how many tropical storms formed in 1933? I would not venture to bet that several tropical cyclones went undetected because there were not weather satellites watching the oceans 24/7. Global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated on Americans by a bunch of kook environmentalist who have a sympathetic ear in the media. Keep driving your SUVs and your thermostatic set at 75 in the winter.....MGC


I personally just want to try to figure this mystery out...I don't care
about the politics of this debate :wink: -- I'm much more concerned
about my home since I'm close to the water...but if it is an interglacial
warm period...that doesn't bode well either.... :(
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#9 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:19 pm

interesting article...with discussion on both sides of the issue...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#comments
0 likes   

User avatar
caribepr
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1794
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:43 pm
Location: Culebra, PR 18.33 65.33

#10 Postby caribepr » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:25 am

Tampa Bay Hurricane wrote:interesting article...with discussion on both sides of the issue...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#comments


Very interesting article, and the comments are fascinating as well. Thanks for sharing this. I personally stand on the belief that both global warming and a natural cycle are at work here, but then, anything that can impact the reduction of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere is going to be something I support 8-) It really is a small, small world (sorry if that song running through your head all day now bugs anyone!)
0 likes   

User avatar
terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1314
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

#11 Postby terstorm1012 » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:36 pm

caribepr wrote:
Tampa Bay Hurricane wrote:interesting article...with discussion on both sides of the issue...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#comments


Very interesting article, and the comments are fascinating as well. Thanks for sharing this. I personally stand on the belief that both global warming and a natural cycle are at work here, but then, anything that can impact the reduction of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere is going to be something I support 8-) It really is a small, small world (sorry if that song running through your head all day now bugs anyone!)


Yeah thanks, its in my head now :lol:

I also agree that human-caused global warming and a natural cycle are at work here as well. The warming appears to be from north to south---temps in the Arctic regions have warmed significantly. We're also coming out of the Little Ice Age but the temperatures today have exceeded the warm period that preceeded that according to a chart I've seen out there. If I find the chart again I'll post it for y'all. :)
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#12 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:45 pm

MGC wrote:Since the summer of 1980, which provoked this global warming debate, scientist have argued the pros and cons of global warming.


What was it about the summer of 1980 which you allege provoked the global warming debate? Personally, I was well aware of the idea years before that (although it's true that some of the earliest modeling results were available by then).


Personally, I think we are just in a interglacial warm period.


We are in an interglacial warm period, that's true. But that doesn't account for the extraordinary rate of change both in greenhouse gasses and in global temperature in the last century plus.


My primary argument against man made global warming is the 1930's. I challenge any of you to go back to the record books of the 1930's. Notice that the majority of record highs set back during that period.


There was indeed a significant warming trend in North America in the 1930s, but that trend was not global. See, for instance, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/200 ... uedyS.html


Surely atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were no where close to todays values, humanity had not created heat islands by paving half of the country side and how many tropical storms formed in 1933?


Carbon dioxide levels were indeed a good deal lower, and global temperatures were also somewhat lower.

I assume you're bringing up heat islands to suggest that global temperature data is skewed by that phenomenon? That's a well-falsified argument. The effect is real, but it is also compensated for in the global temperature record.

I would not venture to bet that several tropical cyclones went undetected because there were not weather satellites watching the oceans 24/7.


Quite possibly. But then nobody disputes the importance of the AMO in Atlantic storm frequency. The question is one of how much additional effect anthropogenic global warming is having on storm intensity and/or frequency, and how much additional effect we can expect as the world continues to warm. The fact that there have been significant natural variations previously does not negate that issue.


Global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic perpetrated on Americans by a bunch of kook environmentalist who have a sympathetic ear in the media. Keep driving your SUVs and your thermostatic set at 75 in the winter.....MGC


That's a vile slur against thousands of researchers, the vast majority of whom are honest and dedicated. I request that you retract this personal assault.
0 likes   

User avatar
terstorm1012
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 1314
Age: 43
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Millersburg, PA

#13 Postby terstorm1012 » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:49 pm

x-y-no wrote:
Carbon dioxide levels were indeed a good deal lower, and global temperatures were also somewhat lower.

I assume you're bringing up heat islands to suggest that global temperature data is skewed by that phenomenon? That's a well-falsified argument. The effect is real, but it is also compensated for in the global temperature record.


I'd like to know more about this heat island effect in relation to the global temperature record. There's a significant one in my area--York Airport is almost 10 degrees cooler than York city. It skews the local record, especially in winter.

Could you post some sites? Thanks bud. :D
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#14 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:02 pm

terstorm1012 wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
Carbon dioxide levels were indeed a good deal lower, and global temperatures were also somewhat lower.

I assume you're bringing up heat islands to suggest that global temperature data is skewed by that phenomenon? That's a well-falsified argument. The effect is real, but it is also compensated for in the global temperature record.


I'd like to know more about this heat island effect in relation to the global temperature record. There's a significant one in my area--York Airport is almost 10 degrees cooler than York city. It skews the local record, especially in winter.

Could you post some sites? Thanks bud. :D


The Hansen et al paper I referenced above addresses this issue. Other than that, I'd have to do some digging around to find the relevant research - I remember Tom Peterson published several papers on this issue six or seven years ago, but I can't recall what journals they were in.

A quick google did turn up this discussion:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/39.html

and

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarm1999/

hope that helps a bit.
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#15 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:24 pm

caribepr wrote:
Tampa Bay Hurricane wrote:interesting article...with discussion on both sides of the issue...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#comments


Very interesting article, and the comments are fascinating as well. Thanks for sharing this. I personally stand on the belief that both global warming and a natural cycle are at work here, but then, anything that can impact the reduction of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere is going to be something I support 8-) It really is a small, small world (sorry if that song running through your head all day now bugs anyone!)


Thanks for comments....
Actually to give credit where credit is due the article link was posted
on twc messageboard by a person in the tropics forum. :wink:
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#16 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:28 pm

[quote="x-y-no]

Quite possibly. But then nobody disputes the importance of the AMO in Atlantic storm frequency. The question is one of how much additional effect anthropogenic global warming is having on storm intensity and/or frequency, and how much additional effect we can expect as the world continues to warm. The fact that there have been significant natural variations previously does not negate that issue.

[/quote]


Well I am still waiting on a meteorologist or climatologists from this forum to dismiss or discuss what I wrote about. This all _could_ be an odd coincidence, that has occurred in tandem, but nobody can deny that polar stratospheric conditions, as well as the lower to mid latitude stratospheric conditions, have changed in tandem with the AMO phases.


Jim
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#17 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:34 pm

Jim Hughes wrote:

Well I am still waiting on a meteorologist or climatologists from this forum to dismiss or discuss what I wrote about. This all _could_ be an odd coincidence, that has occurred in tandem, but nobody can deny that polar stratospheric conditions, as well as the lower to mid latitude stratospheric conditions, have changed in tandem with the AMO phases.


Jim


The thing I'm trying to sort out, though, is causality. The AMO cerationly affects large-scale circulation, so it seems to me most likely that the differences in stratospheric conditions you cited are an effect rather than a cause - but until I've plowed through all that material you referenced and more, I don't think I can make any categorical claims either way.
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#18 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:41 pm

x-y-no wrote:
The thing I'm trying to sort out, though, is causality. The AMO cerationly affects large-scale circulation, so it seems to me most likely that the differences in stratospheric conditions you cited are an effect rather than a cause - but until I've plowed through all that material you referenced and more, I don't think I can make any categorical claims either way.


Well I find it hard to see how the AMO started the relationshp when the stratosphere pattern at the North Pole changed first with the timing of the final warming. (Maybe a couple of years.)

The Low latitude 50 hPa temperature 25S-25N started changing in mid 93'. Gray and others have been quoted as saying the AMO changed in 1995. (Hard data shows this also)

Now you could say that something else may be causing both and I could believe that but not the AMO being the leader.



Jim
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#19 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:46 pm

Jim Hughes wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
The thing I'm trying to sort out, though, is causality. The AMO cerationly affects large-scale circulation, so it seems to me most likely that the differences in stratospheric conditions you cited are an effect rather than a cause - but until I've plowed through all that material you referenced and more, I don't think I can make any categorical claims either way.


Well I find it hard to see how the AMO started the relationshp when the stratosphere pattern at the North Pole changed first with the timing of the final warming. (Maybe a couple of years.)

The Low latitude 50 hPa temperature 25S-25N started changing in mid 93'. Gray and others have been quoted as saying the AMO changed in 1995. (Hard data shows this also)

Now you could say that something else may be causing both and I could believe that but not the AMO being the leader.



Jim


Well, lets be careful here ... I expect what they said is that we're in a period of high Atlantic tropical activity which began in 1995, but that doesn't mean there was some abrupt change in the AMO which only occurred in 1995.


EDIT:

Transition to positive in the smoothed AMO data actually occurred in 1990/1991:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/amo.sm.data
0 likes   

Jim Hughes
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Martinsburg West Virginia

#20 Postby Jim Hughes » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:00 pm

x-y-no wrote:
Jim Hughes wrote:
x-y-no wrote:
The thing I'm trying to sort out, though, is causality. The AMO cerationly affects large-scale circulation, so it seems to me most likely that the differences in stratospheric conditions you cited are an effect rather than a cause - but until I've plowed through all that material you referenced and more, I don't think I can make any categorical claims either way.


Well I find it hard to see how the AMO started the relationshp when the stratosphere pattern at the North Pole changed first with the timing of the final warming. (Maybe a couple of years.)

The Low latitude 50 hPa temperature 25S-25N started changing in mid 93'. Gray and others have been quoted as saying the AMO changed in 1995. (Hard data shows this also)

Now you could say that something else may be causing both and I could believe that but not the AMO being the leader.



Jim


Well, lets be careful here ... I expect what they said is that we're in a period of high Atlantic tropical activity which began in 1995, but that doesn't mean there was some abrupt change in the AMO which only occurred in 1995.


I have heard many people within the field say almost those exact same words. (Abrupt change)

Come on your fair person Jan. I know you had to have heard that 1995 was when the switched basically got turned on.


The hard numbers for the AMO are listed below at this URL.

Not one negative monthly value has occurred since October 1994. These numbers speak for themselves as to what has occurred with the AMO since 10/94.


http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/amo.us.data


Jim
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests