Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

[joseph01]

, everyone not in the know would blame Global Warming for causing a Monster 'cane to hit so far North. Totally ignorant of the fact that it happened before. We know so little about hurricanes, and the cycles that may control them.

I think that statement sums up this contentious issue, quite well.

[Aslkahuna]

Part of this argument hinges on the datasets to prove it one way or another. In terms of global nuimbers, there has been no trend either way. Tha ATL was very active yet WPAC/EPAC/SHEM were less active than usual the first to the point where the ATL was the number one basin for activity last year. In terms of intensities, there are indications that the at least some of the satellite intensity datasets may have a high bias especially the later computerized ones-certainly we saw that happen with the ODTs on Monica. If that is the case, that would cast some doubt on some of the conclusions. GW is happening and some is certainly Solar in origin (approximately 30% is the best estimate) but that leaves the rest to be explained.

Steve

[joseph01]

Part of this argument hinges on the datasets to prove it one way or another. In terms of global nuimbers, there has been no trend either way. Tha ATL was very active yet WPAC/EPAC/SHEM were less active than usual the first to the point where the ATL was the number one basin for activity last year. In terms of intensities, there are indications that the at least some of the satellite intensity datasets may have a high bias especially the later computerized ones-certainly we saw that happen with the ODTs on Monica. If that is the case, that would cast some doubt on some of the conclusions. GW is happening and some is certainly Solar in origin (approximately 30% is the best estimate) but that leaves the rest to be explained.

Steve

A serious question, Steve:

How do you qualify those two statements together. "No trend either way" and "GW is happening". How can you have GW, if there's no trend towards GW? Is it just semantics? I would also appreciate a link to information concerning that 30% figure.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Dr. Gray is not very open minded on the subject. Other experts think there will never be another calm hurricane decade again.

Why is Dr. Gray "Not very open minded" simply because he doesn't agree with these folks. There are a LOT of meteorologists who do not attribute the active Atlantic and Indian Ocean seasons (which were with BELOW average Pacific seasons) at all to much more than a cycle of nature. He DOES acknowledge "global warming" but simply doesn't think that it (especially anthropogenic) is in any way the primary mover of the last two seasons in the Atlantic Basin. Disagreement in no way implies closed minds.

A2K

[Javlin]

The theory of Global Warming as been on the plate for years, and we have even suggested that other planets have gone through some sort of global warming themselves re Mars. However, there is too much data out there to suggest simply global warming is the culprit. ONe has to take in all kinds of factors (volcanoes, earthquakes, etc). Just my observation...............Now 30-40yrs tops of research of actual data to is not a lot of data to move a theory to fact.As was brought up earlier about the overall tropical activity remains fairly constant worldwide.One can go to the Tropical Analysis forum and find such data done by Senorpor.I would also like to add that at some point in the 70's some thought we were going into another ice age.How quickly thinking flops.Is GW real?I do not know for certain but the world has been warming up and cooling off for eons and we just do not have the answers yet.The last mini ice age was I think about the 1500's or 1600's..

[jaxfladude]

Can you all just feel the love when it comes to Global Warming*(man-made, nature or a combo of both or something else)

I wonder how much this topic with it's heated replies has caused the hurricanes and what-nots to be worse. A whole lot of e-hot air if you ask me......

[Aslkahuna]

I think you misread my text. I said no trend either way with regards to global numbers of Tropical Cyclones not Global Warming. The Solar figure comes from an article in Sky and Telescope some time ago and has been reported elsewhere though I'm not sure if the article is still on SkyandTelescope.com anymore or not. There is an article right now (dealing specifically with Monica) on the Weather Underground site that also presents the database issues basically saying the same thing I have. One problem I have is that I lost a lot of the copies of papers I had on climate topics when they were ruined because I left a window open during a big thunderstorm and they got all wet which doesn't do inkjet ink very good. I suppose I can ask my Son on some of these topics when he settles in after getting his Masters next month. His plans include a possible PhD minor on climate change starting in August.

Steev


Steve

[x-y-no]

I do not disagree with global warming...it is not an issue. the CAUSE is the issue. Yes...Mars is warming...at the same rate. Hmmm.

I have seen nothing to support this assertion. Can you direct me to the evidence for this, because to my knowledge it's not true.

Could it be the Sun? There's a concept. The problem I have with the debate is the Global Warming sides (usually environmentalists) attitude of its all man-made...without respect to cycles and other possible causes.

It's simply not accurate to imply that the sun has not been carefully considered when investigating what the possible sources of warming are. It is indeed thought that increased insolation contributed some of the warming in the 19th and early part of the 20th century. But there is not support for the idea that increased solar irradiance has contributed significantly to the warming in the last 50 to 60 years.

Truly man can effect his environment. However, to suggest that is the only reason is ignorant thinking and is usually agenda based...

I'm not clear on who is claiming this. Of course there are natural variations in climate. But man's role has grown dramatically in the last century and a half, and there's tremendous scientific support for the idea that anthropogenic warming will continue to grow for the next couple of centuries at the least.

... and one only has to look at history to see the wild fluctuations in temps over very short periods of time to prove it. And yes...then there is Mars warming at the same rate as us...and there aren't any SUV's there.

Again, I'm very curious about the basis of this Mars claim.


EDIT:

As far as I can find, the claim of "global warming" on Mars is based on a very short (less than 3 Martian years) regional trend in which the south polar ice cap (which consists largely of CO2 ice) is shrinking. There is no evidence of corresponding warming in the northern hemisphere, and indeed the data indicates that globally, Mars cooled significantly in the years between the Viking mission and the Mars Exploration Rover mission (this cooling is primarily due to dust storm activity).

If anyone has knowledge of any actual evidence of global warming on Mars, please pass it on.

[stormtruth]

Why is Dr. Gray "Not very open minded" simply because he doesn't agree with these folks. There are a LOT of meteorologists who do not attribute the active Atlantic and Indian Ocean seasons (which were with BELOW average Pacific seasons) at all to much more than a cycle of nature. He DOES acknowledge "global warming" but simply doesn't think that it (especially anthropogenic) is in any way the primary mover of the last two seasons in the Atlantic Basin. Disagreement in no way implies closed minds.

A2K

From what I have read he does not agree with global warming and believes in cycles. But I haven't read everything he has ever said. Here is a snippet from an interview: http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/d ... -dialogue/

You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?
G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

And another snippet from here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 3552.story

In a separate speech, during the conference's final session, storm prognosticator William Gray, who has been at the forefront of the international debate, said blaming humans for global warming is "so much foolishness."

He, too, believes the Earth has experienced a natural pattern of warming and cooling, and it likely will cool off again within the next 20 years. He said the amount of carbon dioxide produced in the past 30 years isn't nearly enough to produce the amount of warming in that period.

His tone is aggressive and close-minded to me. saying it is just "so much foolishness" when he could just say "i disagree because of x" Most people agree that man causes pollution so the idea that man causes global warming could be wrong (i dont think so but it could be) but saying it is "so much foolishness" to even consider the possibility is not a scientific argument. It is not a very impressive thing for Dr. Gray to say.

[spinfan4eva]

Pacemaker of the Ice Ages


http://www.iceagenow.com/

During a period climatologists now call the "Medieval Warming",
the Vikings thrived for some 300 years. Then the "Little Ice Age"
began and, by 1408, Greenland was, well, really cold and the
Vikings had abandoned the place.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998Study by James Cook Univ. Published 4/9/06
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... world.html

[x-y-no]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998Study by James Cook Univ. Published 4/9/06
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... world.html

This is categorically false. The only way one gets that result is by taking data from 1998 (the tail end of a very major el Nino) and 2005, and thowing out all data before and inbetween. There is no honest way of getting anything but a continued increasing trend.

The astonishing thing is that 2005 - a non el Nino year, was just about as warm as the major el Nino year of 1998 - only 7 years earlier. the next big el Nino we have will shatter all global temperature records by a big margin.

As I asked in another thread in the global weather forum: please consider why some skeptics find it neccesary to engage in such blatant deception. Consider whether you might not want to take a real careful look at other claims made by individuals who are willing to engage in such deception. I don't ask that you reject their claims out of hand, only that you take a real hard look, and if there are more and more examples like this (as has been my experience) make your own judgment.

[jimvb]

I think that the exceptional severity of last year's hurricane season may have been due to a combination of BOTH global warming AND a natural cycle.

Global warming will continue for a while but peak oil (and other fossil fuels) will eventually cut it off.

[Audrey2Katrina]

His tone is aggressive and close-minded to me. saying it is just "so much foolishness" when he could just say "i disagree because of x" Most people agree that man causes pollution so the idea that man causes global warming could be wrong (i dont think so but it could be) but saying it is "so much foolishness" to even consider the possibility is not a scientific argument. It is not a very impressive thing for Dr. Gray to say.

The quote is entirely out of context; and to summarily dismiss someone as "close minded" based on one phrase taken from an entire interview is illogical in my estimation. I heard the entire interview he gave at the recent conference--he was standing on some beach wearing a rather tropical looking chapeau , and there was absolutely NOTHING in the man's voice that was hostile, derisive or in the least way aggressive. I wish I could say the same for many who oppose his viewpoint. I'm not going to go all about beating a dead horse here; but you can find "aggressive" folks in both camps on this debate; but simply branding someone as "close-minded" because of what one reads in a single article without hearing much more than a "snippet", is a hasty generalization to make at best; and an object lesson in narrow-mindedness in and of itself at the very worst. I have respect for his position, as I do for those who, with professional decorum, champion the opposing view.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

If you want to view Dr. Gray's exact comments, and come to your own conclusions, you can try this link:

http://www.bahamaswxconference.com/

You'll find several video "snippets" of him addressing all sorts of issues from 2006 predictions, to the topic of global warming. While I find some of his comments illustrative of a quick sense of humor, I do not find him remotely aggressive or hostile on the issue. He has his opinions, and I respect the man's knowledge on the issues enough to grant him a modicum of tolerance. I've done as much for those espousing the other view as well.

You will have to scroll down to the interview/discussion you wish to watch, and then when the new window opens pick your platform (real player, windows media player, etc.) and then just sit back and watch!

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

Well I did a search on the Solar Climate Connction on the S&T site (and Google) and Mars Warming on S&T and got 1000 hits (1.96 million) on the former and 584 on the latter so it looks like a long period going through my rather extensive S&T collection if and when I find the time. BTW there is an article on Weather Underground that specifically discusses issues that exist with satellite intensity estimates which is clearly germaine to this discussion.

Steve

[joseph01]

If anyone has knowledge of any actual evidence of global warming on Mars, please pass it on.

I did a simple google search on "mars warming" and got over 3, 000,000 hits. And after reading through numerous articles, it seems to me that data collected since about 2002 "suggests" a long term trend of warming on mars, beyond that which can be explained by seasonal factors. But of course, like this whole debate, there is ample evidence to cherry pick from, and support one side or the other. I think that is why there is little consensus on global warming.

[Air Force Met]

, everyone not in the know would blame Global Warming for causing a Monster 'cane to hit so far North. Totally ignorant of the fact that it happened before. We know so little about hurricanes, and the cycles that may control them.

I think that statement sums up this contentious issue, quite well.

Very true...and that is the point. The issue loses perspective of history. Was the 1933 season a product of global warming? It's posible that if you look at the storms east of 50W...if we had sat and recon back then...you would find just as many storms then as there were this year.

And the reasons for the destructiveness of hurricanes? It's not really global warming. As HN2001 said...it's happened before...the diff is we have built and built and moved and moved. If the structures and numbers of people we have now along the coast had been there 400 years ago...we would have had the same amount of damage and dead then as we do today.

And the last thing that I disagree with about the 2005 season and global warming is we should have seen the same reaction across ALL of the basins...and we didn't. Just the atlantic. Global warming is global.

Are there factors we don't know about? Sure...but my contention is the unknown rather than the "we certainly know why!" Especially when you see sunpsot activity during the solar min like we have and rising temps on Mars. Something else is going on.

[joseph01]

Speaking of sunspot activity- there is a slightly menacing looking group turning our way.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

[Air Force Met]

I think that the exceptional severity of last year's hurricane season may have been due to a combination of BOTH global warming AND a natural cycle.

Global warming will continue for a while but peak oil (and other fossil fuels) will eventually cut it off.

No offense, but that treats the earth's climate as static...which it is not.

The earth's climate is in a constant state of flux. Sometimes the temps goes up...and sometimes it goes down. Sometimes it goes up faster than other times. The problem with blaming global warming completely on manmade activity is that 1) It loses perspective of history and assumes the earths climate is static and 2) You can't prove that we don't just happen to be living in one of those periods of rapid upswing. There have been periods in the historical record that have experienced MUCH greater warming during a smaller period of time. There have been periods that warmed at the same rate we are warming now...and there have been periods that have warmed slower.

And for those of you who want to date yourselves...and want to be honest about how little science (and this is what this is about...not emotion)...truly knows about the ISSUE...all you have to do is go back 30 years (and on the grand sceme of things 30 years isn't much) and many (not all) scientists were talking about global cooling. In 1975 the US Academy of Sciences issued a report saying, "If the present cooling trend continues, there is a finite chance an Ice Age could begin within 100 years."

And now...within the last two weeks, there has been a report issues that has stated that CLEANER air may lead to global warming because of increased solar insolation.

You wan't win for losing...and who knows what the next 20 years will bring.

[Air Force Met]

Speaking of sunspot activity- there is a slightly menacing looking group turning our way.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

And speaking of such...has everyone seen the disaster scenario for the massive solar flare on the Discovery channel? Truly frightening.

If that happens I might need to grab my guns and lead my family to the mountains. Good thing I have the necessary survival skills to keep them alive while all of civilization burns, eh?