Time magazine global warming article

[Recurve]

This might make for interesting discussion --

"...in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it."

--Time magazine, April 3, 2006 issue.

No matter what you believe, it's significant that a mainstream mag like Time has now made that statement. Of course, there isn't agreement that human-caused global warming (or even "natural" climate change) is increasing the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones. But the article is scary (complete with provocative cover headline: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried.")

[MiamiensisWx]

Is it possible that global warming could be boosting natural active cycles recently and now?

[terstorm1012]

I picked up the magazine but haven't read it yet, lent it to the other weathernut in the office. will read it this weekend and post what I think.

[x-y-no]

Text of the Time article is available here:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/read ... nkid=54397

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Text about an interesting study:


http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/legates041003.html

[greeng13]

i thought all this got moved to the Global Weather forum...so i posted my thoughts on the "Bring on Global Warming" thread

i am interested in hearing your thoughts x-y-no (on the Time artcile) if it would not be too redundant for you

[Recurve]

Text about an interesting study:


http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/legates041003.html

The article, unfortunately, doesn't give data. 1 degree warmer? 10 degrees warmer? .01 degree warmer? If this is an attempt to "prove" the negative -- human activity has nothing to do with the current warming trend, because warming trends have happened before, and been even warmer than now -- I wonder about comparing apples and flounders. Can reconstructed/deduced climate conditions ever be as accurate as actual temperature measurements that we have now but not for very far in the past?

[greeng13]

and it was published in 2003 since then there have been other studies that have come to light...

and the centuries referenced (except the tail end of the 19th century) were prior to the industrial revolution if i am not mistaken

[CHRISTY]

i read that article thanks for posting!and yes i do believe global warming is playing a part in hurricanes becoming more fierce.even if its a minimal effect!

[Recurve]

I actually don't worry as much about global warming and tropical cyclones -- we were in for an active couple decades no matter what. Insolation is always there putting enough energy into the tropics, you don't need global warming to get monster storms and active seasons. The trades, the jet streams, the persistent highs and passage of lows probably won't change much (my wild guess). The real scare with global warming is major changes in ice sheets affecting ocean circulation patterns, and massive changes in species range. The effects on the biosphere could be much more upsetting than the effect on tropical cyclones or blizzards for that matter. Sea level rise is a huge concern. Effects on plant life and insects could be very serious. I can't believe I'd say this, but tropical cyclone intensity may be the least of our concerns. And until we have 5 or 10 centuries of accurate data on tropical cyclones, trend analysis will remain fairly short-sighted.

[EDR1222]

I actually don't worry as much about global warming and tropical cyclones -- we were in for an active couple decades no matter what. Insolation is always there putting enough energy into the tropics, you don't need global warming to get monster storms and active seasons. The trades, the jet streams, the persistent highs and passage of lows probably won't change much (my wild guess). The real scare with global warming is major changes in ice sheets affecting ocean circulation patterns, and massive changes in species range. The effects on the biosphere could be much more upsetting than the effect on tropical cyclones or blizzards for that matter. Sea level rise is a huge concern. Effects on plant life and insects could be very serious. I can't believe I'd say this, but tropical cyclone intensity may be the least of our concerns. And until we have 5 or 10 centuries of accurate data on tropical cyclones, trend analysis will remain fairly short-sighted.

I agree. I am not saying there couldn't be some problems due to global warming, but it appears what is going on in the tropics is just a normal cycle of heightened activity and different steering currents.

I could be wrong, and someone can correct me if I am, but I believe that tropical cyclone activity in other parts of the world are below normal right now.

[curtadams]

In terms of global warming and hurricanes, I'm most curious about the effect of increased tropopause height. GW basically worsens every indicator for nasty hurricanes (warmer water, less shear, wetter air). There was an article I saw reference - sorry, can't find the link - claiming that only warmer water was associated with the trends to stronger canes and that there had not been secular shifts in the other indicators. (IOW, although we expect the atmospheric effects to be harmful, they are too small to detect.) However, one effect of global warming is higher tropopause elevations, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=673 and that could strengthen cyclones by giving them more room to operate in. IIRC, Ortt said Katrina and Rita went unusually high into the atmosphere. Googling around I can only find glancing references to investigating the possibility in some research proposals.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I still say that Global Warming is a natural cycle, as is Global Cooling, and man is having little (if any) effect upon it. Remember in the 1970s when everyone (in North America and Eurasia) were having cold winters, and severe blizzards? There was talk of another "little Ice Age" back then. Satellites (which many Meteorologists live and die by) have only been around taking Atmospheric Temp. measurements since the 1960s, reliably since the 1970s. That is hardly enough time to get an accurate picture of the long term Global Climate; little own it's cycles.

[Weatherfreak000]

It's interesting how they talk about Canada getting hurricanes.

[greeng13]

It's interesting how they talk about Canada getting hurricanes.

yeah that's part of a "natural cycle" though

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Thing is we have always got hurricanes. Like in New England, they are rare though, and in the Western Maritimes we and New England share most of the same strikes. Like the Hurricane in 1635, Hurricane in 1839, September Gale and Saxby Gale in 1869, Hurricane in 1885, Great New England in 1938, Hazel, Carol and Edna in 1954, Ginny in 1963, Gerda in 1969, and Nova Scotia got Juan in 2003; to name but a few! Nothing new there


PS: Not only is this part of my research, but is also one of my passions. I've been digging through the Provincial and State Archives, News Papers micro film storage, and TV Station archives of New Brunswick and Maine since I was in my last couple of years of High School. I have boxes full of records and copies. Not only do I know just about every hurricane that has effect this region, and how, but I also have uncovered information on other infamous 'Nor'Easter' type systems like the 'Groundhog Day Gale/Storm' of 1976 (which is only 30 years old, but is still quite obscure). Many of these storms, and more importantly there effects, were forgotten until I started my personal research about 15 years ago.

[sponger]

Well if Time has an article it must be true! More nonsense to make you believe there is a consensus. We have no clue what impact we are having on the envirionment. To say its a done deal is irresponsible sensationalist bs. Its what I have come to expect from Time magazine.

[Sanibel]

I'd like for anyone who scoffs at GW to answer specifically how three times any previous upsurge in CO2 would have no effect on the atmosphere and climate?


(I'm guessing this one won't be answered because it can't be answered with "they are looking for budget money".)



Please explain to me in scientific terms how that much CO2 would have no effect?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I'd like for anyone who scoffs at GW to answer specifically how three times any previous upsurge in CO2 would have no effect on the atmosphere and climate?


(I'm guessing this one won't be answered because it can't be answered with "they are looking for budget money".)



Please explain to me in scientific terms how that much CO2 would have no effect?

I agree. That CO2 along with other greenhouses gases such as methane will trap more heat...heat up SSTs more, and lead to more intense impacts on climate in the form of more intense hurricanes.

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, the Maritimes are MORE likely to see a hurricane than New England as they are closer to the typical offshore recurvature track.

Steve