Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

[bocadad]

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/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/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

I think you miss my point but it is nothing to apologize over. You clearly used the conjuctive and in your statement-" ...climate change and man, and or hurricanes." You made a rather damning accusation about researchers and their funding beyond simply accusing CNN of sensationalizing a story, as if that has never happened before. I have no problem with your premise that there is no connection between global warming and hurricane activity in the Atlantic. But you said that was your main point, Mike, which means there was more than one point to be made, does it not? I am reacting to the emotional and in my opinion unsupported claim of a media agenda in a way that smacks of a conspiracy. There are scientists out there who believe there is a connection with global warming. And it is those scientists that the media relies on for their headlines. Eventually, we will figure it out. We just have to have a little faith in the process, no one has figured this out completely yet.

[Sanibel]

I think these record cyclones in the last year are making it more difficult to theorize against global warming having any influence.


I don't know what 1934 was like after the record year of 1933, but I bet those who believe there to be no relationship between cyclones and global warming will have more explaining to do if 2006 has a high number of storms.


EDIT - Unisys Tropical Archive:


1933: 21 storms

1934: 11 storms (many weak)

[Rod Hagen]

The Mars issue.

I've only had a quick glance at this thread, so this may already have been answered / discussed, but aren't climatic changes noted on Mars likely to be due to that planet's equivalent of Milankovich cycles, which we know affect earth, but which don't adequately explain current warming patterns here?

Given that Mars has a much more eccentric orbit than earth, one might expect such cycles to be more important there than here.

[Edit - came across an interesting, but not directly related, article at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5700/1298 concerning Martian weather. ]

Cheers

Rod

[Aslkahuna]

There is a claim that Globally intensities are going up yet in looking at studies of the datasets used to make this assumption the consensus in the studies is that the datasets are nowhere near enough standardized nor in good enough shape to make ANY assumption about intensity changes outside the ATL at this point in time.

Steve

[Rod Hagen]

What about "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" by
P. J. Webster, G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, & H.-R. Chang , Steve? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5742/1844 ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5742/1844 for the abstract) -Science 16 September 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5742, pp. 1844 - 1846 for the "hard copy"

Its conclusion:

We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period , which means that a comprehensive analysis of longer-period oscillations and trends has not been attempted. There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s , which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.


We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment . This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones , although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

Not a definitive conclusion, but certainly more than a significant hint!

Cheers

Rod

[arcticfire]

This debate is really pointless. Either :

A: GW is directly affecting hurricains and from now on we'll get pommeled yearly by worse and worse cains.

B: GW really is just the fluke of the century and all the status quo supporters are right.

Either way dosen't really matter. In 15 years if the cains are still rampaging the cycle guys will just go "oops" , or if they diminish the GW people will go "oops". Nothing is going to change this result by debating it , people are not going to cut down on fossil fuels anymore then I'm going to purposly pull out my toe nails and then stick my feet in rubbing alcohol. So it's either way to late or nothing to worry about.

So just enjoy the weather ride , or blissfull head in the sand lifestyle whichever you prefer , and just stop stressing either way.

[Jim Hughes]

I think these record cyclones in the last year are making it more difficult to theorize against global warming having any influence.


I don't know what 1934 was like after the record year of 1933, but I bet those who believe there to be no relationship between cyclones and global warming will have more explaining to do if 2006 has a high number of storms.


EDIT - Unisys Tropical Archive:


1933: 21 storms

1934: 11 storms (many weak)

I am sorry but you can easily make a case for the space weather effect also. I will grant you that the exact physical process is unknown but I spelled out everything last year, again, and if you followed it you could see some possible relationships.

The same things has happened in the South Pacific this year. You look at what I wrote about, and what has formed, time wise, and it's been happening there as well.

One could hypothesize for the need of certain conditions..teleconnection phases etc..The current state of the AMO the past decade might just be one of these. As well as the much colder stratosphere in the tropics.

I look very forward to seeing how and when these storms develop this season. A what point does coincidence stop?


Jim

[Sanibel]

Again, what I feel people tend to miss is the fact that this all exists in a closed system. You can't shift focus to space weather without accounting for the billions of tons of CO2 we inject into the atmosphere. In doing so it indirectly suggests the billions of tons of CO2 have no affect - which to me is unscientific because it is physically impossible for such a scientific factor to have no affect.


I have been trying to narrow the scientific data down to a main important point. That is, the rate of CO2 rise is 3 times sharper than any previously seen in ice-core samples from natural rises over thousands of years. This sharp spike is unprecedented as far as I know. Since the ice-core samples prove previous natural CO2 rises were directly tied to temperature rises in significant climate change events it would be reasonable to take concern over this spike and its potential consequences. This would be especially true if GW is tied to cyclone intensity and frequency.


A cold stratosphere in the tropics could be the result of forced broad-scale changes in the atmosphere caused by global warming. Just as a decrease in cylones could be caused if glacial melting in the North Atlantic causes a disruption in the Gulf Stream. The cause would still be global warming induced by CO2 rises.

[stormtruth]

My biggest complaint is with people who just refuse to believe the possibility that global warming could be man made. It's as if the Earth is some magical place that can support an infinite amount of humans and can filter out an infinite amount of pollutants. It isn't and we will ultimately destroy our forests, over fish our seas, see endangered species die out and crap up the planet if something isn't done. I think some people ignore this out of fear because they are parents. They don't want to deal with the reality that their kids and their kids kids will inherit an Earth that is significantly more difficult to live in than the one they grew up in.

[Aslkahuna]

The studies of the WPAC datasets are ALSO limited to the satellite era (which began in 1966) and in fact includes the same set of data used by Holland, et.al that's the whole point. From what I can see the none of the Global datasets outside of the HURDAT set have been optimized to a single standard nor are they in good enough shape to make any conclusions. That said, however, I'm not saying that there isn't a possiblity of such an effect, I'm saying that there's no real way to state one way or another in a definitive manner right now. I do believe that GW is occurring and I also believe that it's a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. The problem is that we have one factor that has caused climate anomalies in the past that's operating in a manner as to work towards a warming and that is the Solar Activity factor and that is clouding the issue because when faced with data from the past it's difficult to totally ignore that factor.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

My biggest complaint is with people who just INSIST that global warming is virtually entirely man-made, and then go on into a tirade about how it's going to kill this, kill that, destroy this, wipe-out that, and generally render the planet all but uninhabitable. I have no ax to grind either way, and I certainly respect the opinions of both scientists who subscribe to AGW, and those who do NOT. I just honestly believe the jury is still out, while there are many on BOTH sides who have decided to the point that they're all but forming their own lynch-mob mentality. There are viable (and yes AMPLE) data to suggest that there is an anthropogenic contribution to the GW issue; but to what extent is extremely debatable. And contrary to the alarmist viewpoint [disclaimer: this is NOT a pejorative aimed at anyone who believe in AGW, I find Jan, among others, to be a "just the fact's ma'am" individual who does not fit this category] there are bona-fide, equally sincere scientists who while acknowledging GW, do NOT attribute much of it (if any) to AGW. Equally I could say the "head-stuck-in-the-sand" crowd continues to crow about there being absolutely no GW, and nothing at all to worry about--and I find both extremes bothersome, and FWIW the truth lay somewhere in the middle.

A2K

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

The last Ice Age broke up roughly 10,000 years ago, and it lasted thousands of years (roughly 50,000, most experts agree). We are in an inter-Glacier period. It only makes sense that we would still be warming. Now how much of an impact man made CO2 is having on Global warming is the question, not if GW is man made.

[joseph01]

It's as if the Earth is some magical place that can support an infinite amount of humans and can filter out an infinite amount of pollutants. It isn't and we will ultimately destroy our forests, over fish our seas, see endangered species die out and crap up the planet if something isn't done.

Maybe global warming is the mechanism that will make the necessary corrections for the ills listed above. Perhaps it's what did in the dinosoars too. Think about it, how large some were, enormous methane emitting piles of dinosoar poop everywhere, Not to mention the flatulence of pure greenhouse gas, which had to be untold cubic meters in total... per far...uh...episode. And also, I assume they breathed oxygen and exhaled carbon dioxide. They were lean mean greenhouse gas emitting machines...AND FROM BOTH ENDS!

[vbhoutex]

My biggest complaint is with people who just refuse to believe the possibility that global warming could be man made. It's as if the Earth is some magical place that can support an infinite amount of humans and can filter out an infinite amount of pollutants. It isn't and we will ultimately destroy our forests, over fish our seas, see endangered species die out and crap up the planet if something isn't done. I think some people ignore this out of fear because they are parents. They don't want to deal with the reality that their kids and their kids kids will inherit an Earth that is significantly more difficult to live in than the one they grew up in.

I am not about to debate the GW arguments on either side. Like A2K I have seen lots of evidence of both sides being "correct" and to me obviously the "answers" are a mix of the two sides.

As far as us totally crapping up the earth, I do not see that happening. I am optimistic enough to believe we are smart enough not to let that happen. Also, Mother Nature has prove over and over she can take care of herself and I guarantee she will have the last word, no matter what!!!

[SouthFloridawx]

My biggest complaint is with people who just refuse to believe the possibility that global warming could be man made. It's as if the Earth is some magical place that can support an infinite amount of humans and can filter out an infinite amount of pollutants. It isn't and we will ultimately destroy our forests, over fish our seas, see endangered species die out and crap up the planet if something isn't done. I think some people ignore this out of fear because they are parents. They don't want to deal with the reality that their kids and their kids kids will inherit an Earth that is significantly more difficult to live in than the one they grew up in.

I am not about to debate the GW arguments on either side. Like A2K I have seen lots of evidence of both sides being "correct" and to me obviously the "answers" are a mix of the two sides.

As far as us totally crapping up the earth, I do not see that happening. I am optimistic enough to believe we are smart enough not to let that happen. Also, Mother Nature has prove over and over she can take care of herself and I guarantee she will have the last word, no matter what!!!

I totally agree.. mother earth will win no matter what. She will be here long after we are gone.

[Terrell]

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

Mars' atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, so why does Mars need SUVs to cause Global Warming? Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen 77-78%, which is not a greenhouse gas, followed by Oxygen 21% which is also not a greenhouse gas while CO2 is a trace gas.

I didn't notice anyone pointing out the fact that Earth and Mars have totally different atmospheric composition so I thought I would.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Mars' atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, so why does Mars need SUVs to cause Global Warming? Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen 77-78%, which is not a greenhouse gas, followed by Oxygen 21% which is also not a greenhouse gas while CO2 is a trace gas.

I didn't notice anyone pointing out the fact that Earth and Mars have totally different atmospheric composition so I thought I would.

This is a major "Non-Sequitur"... the CO2 in Mars' atmosphere has been there for ages.... Earth's largest "greenhouse gas" by volume is water vapor...by far. IF Mars is still undergoing the "warming" that has been expected, the questions arise as to what is causing it--not that CO2 is at higher levels in the Martian atmosphere.

A2K

[Terrell]

Mars' atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, so why does Mars need SUVs to cause Global Warming? Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen 77-78%, which is not a greenhouse gas, followed by Oxygen 21% which is also not a greenhouse gas while CO2 is a trace gas.

I didn't notice anyone pointing out the fact that Earth and Mars have totally different atmospheric composition so I thought I would.

This is a major "Non-Sequitur"... the CO2 in Mars' atmosphere has been there for ages.... Earth's largest "greenhouse gas" by volume is water vapor...by far. IF Mars is still undergoing the "warming" that has been expected, the questions arise as to what is causing it--not that CO2 is at higher levels in the Martian atmosphere.

A2K

Actually you further my point. The fact that Mars is getting warmer is used as an argument to say that human influences aren't part of why the Earth is getting warmer. Given that line of argument it's quite fair to point out that Mars atmosphere is significantly different from Earth's atmosphere (why do you think that the sky on Mars is Pink and not Blue). The point being that warming occuring on Mars doesn't disprove human influence when it comes to warming here on Earth.

Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earths' and made almost entirely out of a greenhouse gas, Earth's atmosphere has ALL her greenhouse gases in trace amounts, the question is how much man-made addition of CO2 (and other man-made gases) to the atmosphere is contributing to global warming and what's going on in Mars atmosphere doesn't really prove or disprove anything. That was the jist of my point.

Now the fact that Sol is slowly getting brighter will have an effect on the planets, but that is happening over a VERY long period of time. When Earth was formed Sol was 30% dimmer than he is today but the Earth had more CO2 in her atmosphere, it's estimated that Sol will get 10% brighter over the next billion years or so but by then we'll have either gone to the stars or extinct.

[Audrey2Katrina]

The point being that warming occuring on Mars doesn't disprove human influence when it comes to warming here on Earth.

And the counterpoint being that it doesn't prove it either.

A2K

[Terrell]

The point being that warming occuring on Mars doesn't disprove human influence when it comes to warming here on Earth.

And the counterpoint being that it doesn't prove it either.

A2K

I'm not saying that it does, I'm saying that global warming on Mars is irrelevent to the discussion. Re-read my posts, and what I quoted in my first one in case you missed that.