Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

[jasons2k]

Mike, you are certainly correct in that a lot of the debate is driven and fueled by the media.

<rant>It's so sad that the general public claims that GW is such an important issue and yet couldn't tell you which side of the continent the Atlantic is on on a map, much less the complexities of climate cycles. This is the kind of ignorance that allows people like Al Gore to publicly blame Katrina on GW, Big Oil, and the Bush Administration and then make a movie about it. 'GW is all G.W.'s fault.' Right. That is the epitome of agenda-driven. It's typical, preying on the ignorant masses to push an agenda. And then pathetically, the media runs with it and it becomes a red flashing banner on Drudge & CNN.</rant>

[SouthFloridawx]

Below i posted the nino data for 1965, they are listed in 3 month averages. El Nino conditions were present during the 1965 hurricane season.

Warm (red) and cold (blue) episodes based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v2 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on the 1971-2000 base period. For historical purposes cold and warm episodes (blue and red colored numbers) are defined when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive over-lapping seasons

Data taken from the following site.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/a ... ears.shtml


DJF = -1
JFM = -1
FMA = -0.3
MAM = 0.00
AMJ = 0.2
MJJ = 0.6
JJA = 1.0
JAS = 1.2
ASO = 1.4
SON = 1.5
OND = 1.6
NDJ = 1.5

[x-y-no]

SouthFloridawx:

Thanks for the data. As I'd already figured out, my memory was off. So '65 is an interesting counterexaple to the generally understood suppression of Atlantic storms in el Nino years. Probably worth looking into why that was.


jschlitz:

We do have a no politics rule ...

[cycloneye]

Mike, you are certainly correct in that a lot of the debate is driven and fueled by the media.

<rant>It's so sad that the general public claims that GW is such an important issue and yet couldn't tell you which side of the continent the Atlantic is on on a map, much less the complexities of climate cycles. This is the kind of ignorance that allows people like Al Gore to publicly blame Katrina on GW, Big Oil, and the Bush Administration and then make a movie about it. 'GW is all G.W.'s fault.' Right. That is the epitome of agenda-driven. It's typical, preying on the ignorant masses to push an agenda. And then pathetically, the media runs with it and it becomes a red flashing banner on Drudge & CNN.</rant>

No political statements are allowed at storm2k.

[jasons2k]

Sorry guys. It was intended to be a comment about the media not politics. I'm Sorry.

And FWIW I don't think saying the "current administration" as opposed to the "B" word masks a political statement either. I see that a lot on the board without any feathers getting ruffled.

[SouthFloridawx]

SouthFloridawx:

Thanks for the data. As I'd already figured out, my memory was off. So '65 is an interesting counterexaple to the generally understood suppression of Atlantic storms in el Nino years. Probably worth looking into why that was.


jschlitz:

We do have a no politics rule ...

Actually the 1965 season was below normal as a the information below describes. This would be the El Nino supression rule of thumb for the atlantic basin. There were only 5 named storms that season.
2 making landfall on the united states. (Betsy - Hurricane and Debbie a Tropical Storm.) Also to note that an unnamed tropical storm did impact the united states that year in the gulf of mexico, which would bring the total to 6. Also to note that 4 of the 6 storms that formed in the Atlantic Basin became Hurricanes - http://www.skeetobiteweather.com/archiv ... _1965a.gif

Not Named - NOT NAMED
6/11/1965 - 6/18/1965
Max Winds 52 mph - US landfall

ANNA
8/21/1965 - 8/26/1965
Hurricane - max winds 92 - non us strike

BETSY
8/27/1965 - 9/13/1965
Us landfall and max winds for this hurricane 155 mph

CAROL
9/16/1965 - 10/1/1965
Max winds 98 mph - non us landfall

DEBBIE
9/24/1965 - 9/30/1965
max winds 52 MPH

ELENA
10/12/1965 - 10/19/1965
Max winds 81 mph cat one non us landfall

[Gtmalacd]

Is there any correlation between EL NINO and below normal but intense canes?

[jasons2k]

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.

Here are some excerpts from an article about this subject:

"Major news media have gone after scientists who argue there's still time to study global warming..."

As Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, recently lamented in the Wall Street Journal: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"In Vanity Fair, writer Mark Hertsgaard alleges that Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and the former president of the prestigious Rockefeller University, was a shill for, of all things, the tobacco industry. A press release by the National Environmental Trust proclaims "Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Also Directed $45M Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking." Seitz, a giant in American science, says this is all "ridiculous, completely wrong." Now 94, Seitz explained to TCSDaily.com that R.J. Reynolds had given Rockefeller University $5 million a year for basic research. Seitz says he directed the money toward non-tobacco-related efforts in the study of prions (the virus-like proteins that cause mad cow disease), tuberculosis and other diseases. Prion researcher Stanley Prusiner thanked both R.J. Reynolds and Seitz in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech."

Here is the link to the article itself. Fair warning: there is plenty of politics and commentary about the upcoming former Presidential candidate's film in the cited article:

[SouthFloridawx]

Is there any correlation between EL NINO and below normal but intense canes?

2005 Is Not Included
Years Used 1950 - 2004


Here are the averages for Major Hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin

El Nino 12 Major Storms 11 El Nino Years - Average : 1.090909091 Per Year
La Nina 40 Major Storms in 12 Years - Average: 3.333333333 Per Year
Neutral 92 Major Storms in 32 Years - Average: 2.875 Per Year

[cycloneye]

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.

Here are some excerpts from an article about this subject:

"Major news media have gone after scientists who argue there's still time to study global warming..."

As Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, recently lamented in the Wall Street Journal: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"In Vanity Fair, writer Mark Hertsgaard alleges that Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and the former president of the prestigious Rockefeller University, was a shill for, of all things, the tobacco industry. A press release by the National Environmental Trust proclaims "Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Also Directed $45M Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking." Seitz, a giant in American science, says this is all "ridiculous, completely wrong." Now 94, Seitz explained to TCSDaily.com that R.J. Reynolds had given Rockefeller University $5 million a year for basic research. Seitz says he directed the money toward non-tobacco-related efforts in the study of prions (the virus-like proteins that cause mad cow disease), tuberculosis and other diseases. Prion researcher Stanley Prusiner thanked both R.J. Reynolds and Seitz in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech."

Here is the link to the article itself. Fair warning: there is plenty of politics and commentary about the upcoming former Presidential candidate's film in the cited article:

For the second time I say to you that politics are not allowed at storm2k .The political link has been removed.I say to you,dont post political remarks for a third time.

[jasons2k]

I'm sorry. I'm stepping away from this topic as it's inherently political in nature.

I intentionally did not post the text of the entire article or any "political remarks" from it. I posted a fair warning before the link and the link was simply posted as a source reference. Apparently that's still crossing the line, so I will bow out.

[SouthFloridawx]

I'm sorry. I'm stepping away from this topic as it's inherently political in nature.

I intentionally did not post the text of the entire article or any "political remarks" from it. I posted a fair warning before the link and the link was simply posted as a source reference. Apparently that's still crossing the line, so I will bow out.

This topic does not have to become political, it can remain a scientific discussion. This is a scientific forum and not a political forum so if you just stick with the science part of the discussion you will be fine.

[stormtruth]

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.
MW

Actually if you want to talk MONEY you should look at the scientists paid to support things like cigarettes are healthy, pollution does not exist or is exaggerated, nuclear energy is totally safe and global warming is not man made. That's where all the BIG MONEY is in science.

[MiamiensisWx]

Actually if you want to talk MONEY you should look at the scientists paid to support things like cigarettes are healthy, pollution does not exist or is exaggerated, nuclear energy is totally safe and global warming is not man made. That's where all the BIG MONEY is in science.

NOW this discussion is turning political. Let's get back to the actual debate, OK?

[cycloneye]

For those who want to discuss about the politics of global warming below there are a few sites that are political forums.




http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/index.php

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/

Storm2k policy is of no political remarks so those sites are at your choice if you want to talk about global warming in a political way.

[Aslkahuna]

To return to the original topic for a moment. I have done my first read of the three papers presented at the AMS Conference in Monterey that deal with reanalyzing the WPAC TC database particularly with regards to intensities and I get the idea that there are enough questions about the data right now to make it most premature to make any definitive pronouncements about GLOBAL intensity changes and until the databases are optimized to a single standard this will remain so. To me this question remains totally unanswered and the premise unproven. In fact, one paper reanalysing the data for the period of 1969-1987 finds a much lesser increase in Cat 4's and 5's than what has been surmise while the addition of reanalysed 1966-69 data to the set causes that trend to disappear. This is where the skepticism comes from.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

Actually if you want to talk MONEY you should look at the scientists paid to support things like cigarettes are healthy, pollution does not exist or is exaggerated, nuclear energy is totally safe and global warming is not man made. That's where all the BIG MONEY is in science.

That is a bogus effort at "Victory by definition" and it doesn't pass the most fundamental applicaiton of logic.

You see, THIS is precisely why one cannot discuss this civilly with individuals who have already completely locked their minds shut steel tight on an issue. Non-sequiturs, ad-hominems, guilt by association, dubious analogies and inconsequentials are brought in by the droves--(admittedly by BOTH sides) and then the political seepage results. Well, I've said my piece in the Bring on Global Warming thread, and stand firmly with all that has been disclosed. Contrary to what others would have you think, the issue is NOT decided beyond dispute, and efforts to stifle opposing views with comments equating dissent on this to those who defended tobacco only serve to fan the flames that are most certainly to follow. I bid all adieu in this thread as it clearly is headed down the road to politicial dissolution

[bocadad]

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.

I would love to see this discussion focused on the data available. There is no need for it to become political unless you are agenda driven and not willing to face the facts regardless of their implications. I am really surprised to read a quote such as the one above as it is emotional and not supported by any data. The media is a strawman in this debate and has no real bearing on all the data scientists are contributing to this discussion, including recent data with more precise atmospheric measurements showing the earth is getting warmer. Why it is getting warmer is another issue. People here are blending the argument over global warming and the relationship to hurricane activity as if it were a single issue. It is not. We may have global warming and it may be irrelevant to any increase in hurricane intensity. I personally believe in global warming, but I don't have anything invested in this belief other than that is what the facts seem to suggest. Global warming does not violate any personal religious or belief of mine or threaten a strongly held political or philosophical bent. On the other hand, I have heard from people who are against global warming who are afraid that environmental controls may be costly and detrimental to our economy or are afraid to give another country a say in how we handle this issue as a threat to our sovereignty. It just seems to me that these strongly held beliefs often drive how one looks at the data. I am only suggesting that it would be better to be more objective. If global warming is truly taking place due to man's interaction with our environment, then we must find a solution and that will by necessity have political overtones. But let's solve the puzzle first.

[MWatkins]

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.

I would love to see this discussion focused on the data available. There is no need for it to become political unless you are agenda driven and not willing to face the facts regardless of their implications. I am really surprised to read a quote such as the one above as it is emotional and not supported by any data.

You have taken the quote out of context.

I am sorry I brought this up. You should probably read the entire thread and all of my responses instead of just keying in on once sentence.

But, as I am sure you can imagine, I am not surprised.

My main point, and I have yet to see it refuted, is the notion that Global Warming is causing stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic only is completely unsupportable. Yet the headline on CNN is:

Experts: Global Warming Behind 2005 Hurricanes

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04 ... index.html

I think the discussion would be better served if we concentrate on that statement and discuss why you believe my analysis is bad, instead of taking one snippit about the media out of the context of the entire discussion.

MW

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have heard from people who are against global warming who are afraid that environmental controls may be costly and detrimental to our economy or are afraid to give another country a say in how we handle this issue as a threat to our sovereignty.

And some of those objections are quite valid. That said, I have heard from people who are strongly on the other side who are afraid --well to avoid anything political, suffice it to say they rely very strongly on just that: fear--and leave it at that. There is sufficient "science" IMO on BOTH sides of the issue to discuss it without all the ad-hominems and without pointing political fingers; but somehow or other this always manages to creep in.

If global warming is truly taking place due to man's interaction with our environment, then we must find a solution and that will by necessity have political overtones. But let's solve the puzzle first.

That FINAL statement implies we know what the puzzle is, and that is something we, in fact to not know. I, too, am quite convinced (actually it's beyond any doubt) that the earth has warmed... the catch 22 in all of this is whether or not it's mostly if not entirely natural, or mostly, if not entirely anthropogenic. This enigma, despite the hue and cry from opposing viewpoints has been anything but resolved beyond any dispute. Hence, one cannot "solve" a puzzle, until they have all the pieces, and the finding of those pieces is central to finding any solution.

A2K