Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

[x-y-no]

Well, about 2 hours spent with Google Scholar failed to turn up any support for the notion that Mars is warming. Since several here have made that claim, would you please supply some guidance as to what research it is based on?

[Air Force Met]

Well, about 2 hours spent with Google Scholar failed to turn up any support for the notion that Mars is warming. Since several here have made that claim, would you please supply some guidance as to what research it is based on?

I heard it on a teleconference with a climatologist. Sorry...but I'm not pouring over journals...I'm not a climatologist nor am I a researcher. The person who spoke it to me was from NOAA and was the SOO from a NWS office.

However, just a cursory look at google found the following (and this was just a quick look...can't imagine what I could find in 2 hours)...

"After decades of thinking that the ice caps on Mars were mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), planetary geologists are starting to think that those caps may be mostly fresh water ice instead." "Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper. " "The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by a global warming trend happening on Mars. " "If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change. "

AND

"The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.
MOC images of the south polar cap taken in 1999 were compared with images of the same locations taken in 2001, and it was discovered that pits had enlarged, mesas had shrunk, and small buttes had vanished. In all, the scarps that enclose the pits and bound the mesas and buttes retreated about 3 meters (3.3 yards) in 1 martian year (687 Earth days). This rapid retreat of polar scarps can only occur if the ice is frozen carbon dioxide (also known as "dry ice"). Retreat of scarps made of water ice is much slower and would not have been measurable from one martian year to the next."

These new observations indicate that the south polar residual cap is not permanent. It is disappearing, a little bit more each southern spring and summer season. At the present rate, a layer 3 m thick can be completely eroded away in a few tens of martian years.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camer ... index.html
AND

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy.

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.
The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20.


Solar Link Possible

Scientists are not sure whether the Martian warming is entirely due to Mars-specific forces or may be the result of other forces, such as increasing solar output, which would explain much of the recent asserted warming of the Earth as well.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
************************


OK...there is just a quick check.

Now...sure it is a short period of time...but it is NASA and CALTECH saying it...among others...and this took me 10 minutes to find.

Now...it is a short period of time...but on the grand sceme of things...it is NOT much greater a time scale than that of earther warming of 30 years or so...considering back in 1975 they were speaking of global cooling (see the 1975 report posted). And if we are asked to believe that such a short period of time (~30 years) is PROOF of one phenomena...then why can't 6 years be proof of another...given we are taking millions of years and a decade or two is a blink of an eye?

[x-y-no]

Yes, that's the resaerch I mentioned from the very beginning. It's a less than three year trend in one region (south polar cap). There is no corresponding data indicating warming in any other region which I have been able to find.

There is good reason (from GCMs) to think that the south polar regional climate is quite unstable. See, for instance Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (only available online by subscription, which sadly I don't have).

I'll note that the NASA press release you quote first has all sorts of caveats ("may have" etc.) while the second one (from an agenda-driven site) strips out all that and just baldly asserts "[t]he planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming". I submit that this one piece of very short-term data covering one region does not even remotely support that claim.

[Air Force Met]

Yes, that's the resaerch I mentioned from the very beginning. It's a less than three year trend in one region (south polar cap). There is no corresponding data indicating warming in any other region which I have been able to find.

There is good reason (from GCMs) to think that the south polar regional climate is quite unstable. Se, for instance Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (only available online by subscription, which sadly I don't have).

I'll note that the NASA press release you quote first has all sorts of caveats ("may have" etc.) while the second one strips out all that and just baldly asserts "[t]he planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming". I submit that this one piece of very short-term data covering one region does not even remotely support that claim.

Actually...because the Martian year is twice as long...it's 6 years...not three.

As far as caveats...THAT IS THE POINT (emphasis...not yelling)! Global warming is all about caveats! Because of the short perspective in which we are looking...NOBODY can prove (and I don't care how hard you try...it's just not possible) that we are not on a natural upswing. Can you prove that we are not on a natural upswing? Can you prove this is not a natural cycle? You can't...that's the caveat.

6 Years ( not three) is not much different than 30 on the geological time scale. It's about persepctive...and on the scale of just 30 years...you can't supoprt the claim that man is causing global warming and that it's not natural. It's not provable. There are too many other instance in the geological record where the temp rose at a greater rate than this.

[Air Force Met]

I submit that this one piece of very short-term data covering one region does not even remotely support that claim.

And again...I wanted to emphasize that was my point. Too little data to make hysterical assertions....and you have to be honest and admit that there are those who are hysterical in their claim that they KNOW that man is causing (they just know it) global warming and it will kill us all...based on a very short slice of time and forgetting the earth's climate is not static and in a constant state of flux.

And the real point is people want to make the conclusions they want to make. You say it's not enough...NASA thinks it is. I find it interesting that it is happening at another point in the solar system and you have to admit that it is data that cannot be dismissed and should be studied. Correct?

And what if it is found to be true? What if we do prove that Mars is warming at the same rate? What will the impact be on those with an agenda...or will they listen to science? So far...they haven't. They haven't listened to reasonable science that has tried to remind them that this type of warming is not uncommon in the record of earth.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago the earth warmed 10C in a period of a few years due to a land slide off the coast of England that released a large volume of methane ice.

[x-y-no]

Actually...because the Martian year is twice as long...it's 6 years...not three.

I did say three Martian years the first time I referenced this. Sorry for the omission the second time around.

As far as caveats...THAT IS THE POINT (emphasis...not yelling)! Global warming is all about caveats!

But it was states several times in this thread that Mars is warming "at the same rate" as Earth. No caveat was offered. I submit that this one result showing a very short-term trend in one region doesn't even support the weaker claim that Mars is warming globally, let alone the stronger claim that it's at the same rate as Earth.

Because of the short perspective in which we are looking...NOBODY can prove (and I don't care how hard you try...it's just not possible) that we are not on a natural upswing. Can you prove that we are not on a natural upswing? Can you prove this is not a natural cycle? You can't...that's the caveat.

Well, the human origin of the entire observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has been definitively established by isotopic analysis. There are no natuarally occurring CFCs, so they must also be of human origin. Methane one could make an argument about, but it's fairly well understood how agriculture contributes to methane production. The physics of infrared absorption by these greenhouse gasses is also well understood. The observed warming is squarely in the middle of the range of effects that modelling of all this predicts.

6 Years ( not three) is not much different than 30 on the geological time scale. It's about persepctive...and on the scale of just 30 years...you can't supoprt the claim that man is causing global warming and that it's not natural. It's not provable. There are too many other instance in the geological record where the temp rose at a greater rate than this.

I have yet to see any explanation for why the physics of the greenhouse effect should suddenly not apply when it's humans perturbing the concentrations. The fact that climate has varied considerably in the past is bad news not good news, since it implies that forcings can have very large effect. And a forcing is a forcing. There's no reasonable cause to believe anthropogenic forcing is any different from natural forcing.

[x-y-no]

I submit that this one piece of very short-term data covering one region does not even remotely support that claim.

And again...I wanted to emphasize that was my point. Too little data to make hysterical assertions....and you have to be honest and admit that there are those who are hysterical in their claim that they KNOW that man is causing (they just know it) global warming and it will kill us all...based on a very short slice of time and forgetting the earth's climate is not static and in a constant state of flux.

Well, my point was that it appears the same poeple who reject a huge body of research supporting AGW on Earth are surprisingly quick to read a great deal into a short-term regional trend on Mars.

And you keep couching things in superlatives and absolutes which I quite frankly have not seen from climate science researchers. I really dn't see that as productive.

And the real point is people want to make the conclusions they want to make. You say it's not enough...NASA thinks it is. I find it interesting that it is happening at another point in the solar system and you have to admit that it is data that cannot be dismissed and should be studied. Correct?

And what if it is found to be true? What if we do prove that Mars is warming at the same rate? What will the impact be on those with an agenda...or will they listen to science?

If it turns out that Mars really is warming, then the next question is does this have the same cause as Earth's warming. But we're getting far ahead of ourselves here, because the first claim insn't even close to being demonstrated.

So far...they haven't. They haven't listened to reasonable science that has tried to remind them that this type of warming is not uncommon in the record of earth.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago the earth warmed 10C in a period of a few years due to a land slide off the coast of England that released a large volume of methane ice.

And as I said, this is bad news, since it means climate can be perturbed in a major way by such forcings, which means there's good reason to think the forcings we are introducing will also have significant effect.

[Gtmalacd]

I think the site below is one of the best site for GW answers. It is very indepth.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100.html

[vacanechaser]

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.

I cant say I blame him in his comments... Some of these same eggheads were saying he was a crazy old man that could never predict in advance the possible tropical activity in the Atlantic years ago... I think he has done a great job at proving them wrong... To me it is all agenda driven and needs to stop.. In the 70's and 80's some of these same people were crying global cooling, now they have changed their tone... No one cane ever answer the question as to why the other basins have slowed below average, while the Atlantic has become so active... It's just funny how when it does not fit the agenda of making man out to be the bad guy, then it gets brushed aside as an anomally... X-Y-No keeps saying no one has blamed it all on man... Well my friend, that seems to be all the talk... You never hear anything about cycles from any of these folks, until someone on this board brings it up or you hear Bill Gray talk about it... It's all about how the vehicle emissions, exhaust and other pollutants that we humans have caused... If I am wrong, show me where one of these great scientists have made any comments about cycles with out throwing it aside as B.S. because it does not fit their arguments...

Hell of a way to get me back to posting here!! lol... this topic is a hot button subject with me...


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[x-y-no]

I don't know Jesse, we must be reading different stuff, because I see plenty of attention to natural forcings in all the climate science research I've looked at - one could hardly construct an even remotely realistic GCM without such attention.

We've been over and over the alleged ice age predictions, can we please not do it again?

[vacanechaser]

Well, I just hear it from any of the things I have seen or read... Atleast you do to some point.. That I will say... .. Been awhile... seems we keep meeting in this type of fourm....

Who said anything about ice age??? I didn't... just thought I would remind everyone about the same people yelling GW, were talking GC 20 years ago..


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[MWatkins]

Anyone, and I mean anyone linking an active Atlantic season to global warming, without first looking at global activity, is a scientific fraud.

These scientists are out for one thing, and one thing olny. Money. Research money makes the scientific community go round and the best scientist on the planet will contribute nothing to the field without it.

While I do realize that one of the people making such a link is a guy from NOAA, most are not.

Science has turned into an industry just like everything else. Science will follow the money, and the money follows what people want to read/hear.

So there you go.

There are significant issues with the 2 latest studies showing an increase in global hurricane activity in the last 30 years, and all experts agree, all of them, that a .5C increase in SST's globaly (a upper range figure for the last 30 years) would correspond to, at most, a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, an amount unmeasurable by even the most state-of-the-art equipment.

The problem is, no one is saying that. A bigger problem is, atlantic hurricanes are up because of ATLANTIC warming, not global warming.

Anyone care to take on the argument that eastern Pacific hurricanes are down since the upswing in the Atlantic began? No? Why not? I know why not. Nobody lives in the middle of the NE Pacific, and the countries that can be impacted are not in the US, where most of this stuff is coming from. NOBODY CARES about EPAC hurricanes, so nobody talks about them.

So unless someone puts Atlantic hurricanes in the context of global cyclones, they are a FRAUD. If they do put them in the global context, well that's a different argument.

MW

[Gtmalacd]

Anyone, and I mean anyone linking an active Atlantic season to global warming, without first looking at global activity, is a scientific fraud.

These scientists are out for one thing, and one thing olny. Money. Research money makes the scientific community go round and the best scientist on the planet will contribute nothing to the field without it.

While I do realize that one of the people making such a link is a guy from NOAA, most are not.

Science has turned into an industry just like everything else. Science will follow the money, and the money follows what people want to read/hear.

So there you go.

There are significant issues with the 2 latest studies showing an increase in global hurricane activity in the last 30 years, and all experts agree, all of them, that a .5C increase in SST's globaly (a upper range figure for the last 30 years) would correspond to, at most, a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, an amount unmeasurable by even the most state-of-the-art equipment.

The problem is, no one is saying that. A bigger problem is, atlantic hurricanes are up because of ATLANTIC warming, not global warming.

Anyone care to take on the argument that eastern Pacific hurricanes are down since the upswing in the Atlantic began? No? Why not? I know why not. Nobody lives in the middle of the NE Pacific, and the countries that can be impacted are not in the US, where most of this stuff is coming from. NOBODY CARES about EPAC hurricanes, so nobody talks about them.

So unless someone puts Atlantic hurricanes in the context of global cyclones, they are a FRAUD. If they do put them in the global context, well that's a different argument.

MW

Good site for this post.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10.html

[x-y-no]

Anyone, and I mean anyone linking an active Atlantic season to global warming, without first looking at global activity, is a scientific fraud.

Strong words. But specifically what climate scientists are you talking about here? Not Emanuel et al., not Curry et al. and not Knutson et al. - those were all global studies.

These scientists are out for one thing, and one thing olny. Money. Research money makes the scientific community go round and the best scientist on the planet will contribute nothing to the field without it.

While I do realize that one of the people making such a link is a guy from NOAA, most are not.

Science has turned into an industry just like everything else. Science will follow the money, and the money follows what people want to read/hear.

So there you go.

Funding for climate science research has grown at approximately the same rate as the GDP since 1993. In the same time period funding for the NIH, for example, has grown at a dramatically higher rate. So if there's an effort to hype global warming as a way of making money, it's been singularly ineffective.

There are significant issues with the 2 latest studies showing an increase in global hurricane activity in the last 30 years, and all experts agree, all of them, that a .5C increase in SST's globaly (a upper range figure for the last 30 years) would correspond to, at most, a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, an amount unmeasurable by even the most state-of-the-art equipment.

The problem is, no one is saying that. A bigger problem is, atlantic hurricanes are up because of ATLANTIC warming, not global warming.

There's been some pretty extensive back and forth between the authors of the resent studies and those, particularly Dr. Landsea, who have raised objections. I don't see how you can say nobody is talking about this.

Anyone care to take on the argument that eastern Pacific hurricanes are down since the upswing in the Atlantic began? No? Why not? I know why not. Nobody lives in the middle of the NE Pacific, and the countries that can be impacted are not in the US, where most of this stuff is coming from. NOBODY CARES about EPAC hurricanes, so nobody talks about them.

I can think of two reasons why there would be a negative correlation between Atlantic and EPAC activity:

First that in el Nino years, Atlantic activity is suppressed by shear but EPAC activity is enhanced due to both SSTs and enhanced convection.

Second that in years with high Atlantic activity, more waves develop in the Atlantic and thus fewer cross CA into the Epac to become centers of development.

I'll freely admit I haven't seriously looked into this hypothesis, but it's at least plausible.

[Gtmalacd]

Anyone, and I mean anyone linking an active Atlantic season to global warming, without first looking at global activity, is a scientific fraud.

Strong words. But specifically what climate scientists are you talking about here? Not Emanuel et al., not Curry et al. and not Knutson et al. - those were all global studies.

These scientists are out for one thing, and one thing olny. Money. Research money makes the scientific community go round and the best scientist on the planet will contribute nothing to the field without it.

While I do realize that one of the people making such a link is a guy from NOAA, most are not.

Science has turned into an industry just like everything else. Science will follow the money, and the money follows what people want to read/hear.

So there you go.

Funding for climate science research has grown at approximately the same rate as the GDP since 1993. In the same time period funding for the NIH, for example, has grown at a dramatically higher rate. So if there's an effort to hype global warming as a way of making money, it's been singularly ineffective.

There are significant issues with the 2 latest studies showing an increase in global hurricane activity in the last 30 years, and all experts agree, all of them, that a .5C increase in SST's globaly (a upper range figure for the last 30 years) would correspond to, at most, a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, an amount unmeasurable by even the most state-of-the-art equipment.

The problem is, no one is saying that. A bigger problem is, atlantic hurricanes are up because of ATLANTIC warming, not global warming.

There's been some pretty extensive back and forth between the authors of the resent studies and those, particularly Dr. Landsea, who have raised objections. I don't see how you can say nobody is talking about this.

Anyone care to take on the argument that eastern Pacific hurricanes are down since the upswing in the Atlantic began? No? Why not? I know why not. Nobody lives in the middle of the NE Pacific, and the countries that can be impacted are not in the US, where most of this stuff is coming from. NOBODY CARES about EPAC hurricanes, so nobody talks about them.

I can think of two reasons why there would be a negative correlation between Atlantic and EPAC activity:


Second that in years with high Atlantic activity, more waves develop in the Atlantic and thus fewer cross CA into the Epac to become centers of development.

I'll freely admit I haven't seriously looked into this hypothesis, but it's at least plausible.

[/quote]First that in el Nino years, Atlantic activity is suppressed by shear but EPAC activity is enhanced due to both SSTs and enhanced convection.

If this where true, then why the upswing in canes during an El NINO event what seems to be an upswing in 1965 (approx)

[Gtmalacd]

by in large your correct X-Y-NO

[x-y-no]

IIRC, the 64-65 el Nino was pretty much at an end by the time the Atlantic hurricane season got going.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT:

Sorry, I think I am wrong.

64 was a la Nina year, 65 el Nino started in summer and went through winter 66.

I'm not sure what the deal was with Atlantic activity that year, usually the correlation is pretty strong.

[Gtmalacd]

IIRC, the 64-65 el Nino was pretty much at an end by the time the Atlantic hurricane season got going.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT:

Sorry, I think I am wrong.

64 was a la Nina year, 65 el Nino started in summer and went through winter 66.

I'm not sure what the deal was with Atlantic activity that year, usually the correlation is pretty strong.

Okay, but for the most part good analysis and debate...I like seeing a good debate between professionals.

[MWatkins]

Strong words. But specifically what climate scientists are you talking about here? Not Emanuel et al., not Curry et al. and not Knutson et al. - those were all global studies.

I haven't had time to read through the AMS abstracts yet but I will probably get there this coming weekend. The articles I have read so far are pointing to a researcher from NOAA and a couple of other people linking up Atlantic activity with GW. However, this could be media filtering so I will need to catch up on my reading before I answer. I think the media is the biggest culprit but there are professionals out there saying that. Webster/Emanuel are global studies. But once again that's a diffferent argument.

Funding for climate science research has grown at approximately the same rate as the GDP since 1993. In the same time period funding for the NIH, for example, has grown at a dramatically higher rate. So if there's an effort to hype global warming as a way of making money, it's been singularly ineffective.

While the climate study budget is in line with GDP (I'll take your word because I don't know, I am sure you do), it would be very interesting indeed to see how that budget is getting allocated. For example, Dr Gray is no longer getting NOAA money and hasn't since the current administration took office. It's hard to say his studies aren't worthwhile, impactful and necessary.

I am willing to bet just about anything that researchers ultimately showing there is a link between climate change and man, and or hurricanes, are getting a disproportionately larger slice than those who are not.

There's been some pretty extensive back and forth between the authors of the resent studies and those, particularly Dr. Landsea, who have raised objections. I don't see how you can say nobody is talking about this.

There are a few like Landsea, Gray, Klotzbach and others who are out there talking about it, but the folks on the other side of the fence are getting the headlines. you have to turn to page b-32 to see what Landsea said, and even then, outside the scientific community no one is even mentioning that EPAC hurricanes are down. Most people arent even aware that hurricanes occur anywhere but the Atlantic.

I can think of two reasons why there would be a negative correlation between Atlantic and EPAC activity:

First that in el Nino years, Atlantic activity is suppressed by shear but EPAC activity is enhanced due to both SSTs and enhanced convection.

Second that in years with high Atlantic activity, more waves develop in the Atlantic and thus fewer cross CA into the Epac to become centers of development.

I'll freely admit I haven't seriously looked into this hypothesis, but it's at least plausible.

There is a strong inverse relationship between the two for some of the reasons you just mentioned although it's not completely understood. Klotzbach will be coming out with a paper very soon noting that the numbers across both basins combined are flat over time.

MW

[x-y-no]

I am willing to bet just about anything that researchers ultimately showing there is a link between climate change and man, and or hurricanes, are getting a disproportionately larger slice than those who are not.

Well, maybe so. But consider that if there really is such a link, then that's exactly what one ought to properly expect.

That is to say, if there is such a thing as progress in science, one would expect continued research to build upon that progress, and thus to exhibit a "bias" towards previous positive results and against previous negative results.