What part do you think Global Warming is playing?

[x-y-no]

Global warming IMO has everything to do with it as far as us having more intense storms...The earth's average temp is getting warmer....SO THE SST'S are warmer...Do we humans have anything to do with it??? I think it is just a cycle....

Well, maybe we can debate this in the off season. Suffice it to say I disagree, and I would say the great preponderance of the evidence disagrees.

[feederband]

Global warming IMO has everything to do with it as far as us having more intense storms...The earth's average temp is getting warmer....SO THE SST'S are warmer...Do we humans have anything to do with it??? I think it is just a cycle....

Well, maybe we can debate this in the off season. Suffice it to say I disagree, and I would say the great preponderance of the evidence disagrees.

Well I am using stone age methods for my conclusions....This summer IMO has been the warmest I can rememeber...And I said that last year....I went to the beach and the water was warmer than I've ever seen it...So in my little part of the planet it is indeed warmer...And this years SST'S in the hurricane zones were warmer than norm.Thus part of the reason on such intense storms...I'm not on the Global warming bandwagon as far as we are the primary cause..But I believe the planet is indeed warmer and continueing to get even warmer...If this is the case I wonder if 5 years from now will 200 mph super canes be a norm...

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I like a chemistry debate...NOTE THIS IS
CLIMO-CHEMISTRY NOT POLITICS:

Enhanced methane content of the atmosphere intensifies storms, regardless of whether or not its emission is caused by man or nature. Recall that prehistorically prior to the production of oxygen by prolific cyanobacteria the atmosphere was filled with methane, ammonia, and H-2 and other gases and had too much violent weather activity to support anything more than the bacteria....



The reduced nature of methane renders it unstable, and thus in any reaction can give off quite a bit of Gibbs Free energy, its instability renders its Delta (change in) Gibbs Free energy in a reaction negative, since the Product energy-reactant energy < 0 since the product has much less energy than the reactants. Methane has powerful capabilities.



The impacts of Methane are felt in ACTIVE CYCLONE DECADE CYCLES ONLY (WITH REGARDS TO HURRICANES)....During inactive periods like 1970-1990 the atmospheric conditions are so unfavorable for hurricane development that not even methane can stimulate the development through increased warming or etc..!



The tremendous amount of Gibbs free energy as indicated by Delta G in methane reactions is due to methane structure. Methane is heavily reduced (not oxidized at all) and reduced hydrocarbons contain intense energy potential. Methane when it reacts is highly exothermic, meaning it is capable of giving off a large amount of heat (thus the products of a reaction involving methane contain much less energy, as that energy was released in the form of heat, which explains why methane oxidation reactions are SPONTANEOUS, the heat availabe in methane's constituent hydrocarbons are just BEGGING TO BE RELEASED!)



Methane is not the only dangerous pollutant out there. But I place emphasis on it here because it is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of implications for global warming.

It's energy from the breakdown of methane and other hydrocarbonic molecules that increases heat and energy available to power a storm. Although this is not the only factor, it certainly plays an important role in exacerbating the impacts of other deleterious hurricane-intensifying factors (Oscillations, Solar Energy, Ionospheric Conductivity and Oceanic Coupling, etc.).

Methane also has large enthalpy release magnitude values that
are negative in nature, indicative of heat release and substantial chemical corroboration of my earlier claims.

Tampa Bay: What is the mechanism by which the energy is released? Methane is fairly stable at normal conditions. It takes an energy input to break those covalent bonds to allow it to be oxidized. What gives it the push it needs?

Methane reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide in air. But allow
me to digress.
Energy from the breakdown of methane is released also through
combustion factories.
Well since it is 8 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas
it amplifies the greenhouse effect, heating the tropical regions and
tropical oceans much faster, even without breaking down.

[x-y-no]

Global warming IMO has everything to do with it as far as us having more intense storms...The earth's average temp is getting warmer....SO THE SST'S are warmer...Do we humans have anything to do with it??? I think it is just a cycle....

Well, maybe we can debate this in the off season. Suffice it to say I disagree, and I would say the great preponderance of the evidence disagrees.

Well I am using stone age methods for my conclusions....This summer IMO has been the warmest I can rememeber...And I said that last year....I went to the beach and the water was warmer than I've ever seen it...So in my little part of the planet it is indeed warmer...And this years SST'S in the hurricane zones were warmer than norm.Thus part of the reason on such intense storms...I'm not on the Global warming bandwagon as far as we are the primary cause..But I believe the planet is indeed warmer and continueing to get even warmer...If this is the case I wonder if 5 years from now will 200 mph super canes be a norm...

I think you misunderstood what part I was disagreeing with. Specifically, I was disagreeing with the "it is just a cycle" part.

Like I said, though, I'd rather leave this debate for the off season.

[feederband]

Global warming IMO has everything to do with it as far as us having more intense storms...The earth's average temp is getting warmer....SO THE SST'S are warmer...Do we humans have anything to do with it??? I think it is just a cycle....

Well, maybe we can debate this in the off season. Suffice it to say I disagree, and I would say the great preponderance of the evidence disagrees.

Well I am using stone age methods for my conclusions....This summer IMO has been the warmest I can rememeber...And I said that last year....I went to the beach and the water was warmer than I've ever seen it...So in my little part of the planet it is indeed warmer...And this years SST'S in the hurricane zones were warmer than norm.Thus part of the reason on such intense storms...I'm not on the Global warming bandwagon as far as we are the primary cause..But I believe the planet is indeed warmer and continueing to get even warmer...If this is the case I wonder if 5 years from now will 200 mph super canes be a norm...

I think you misunderstood what part I was disagreeing with. Specifically, I was disagreeing with the "it is just a cycle" part.

Like I said, though, I'd rather leave this debate for the off season.

You are correct I misunderstood....

[curtadams]

Global heating and cooling are cyclic, it just so happens we are on the heating side of a cycle.

What heating cycle? There are two cycles affecting global temperature- solar activity and Milankovitch. Neither can be causing the current warming because, as radiative heating, they predict the opposite of almost every observable aspect of the current warming - greater heating in the tropics when it's in the Arctic, greater heating during summer when it's in winter, and greater heating in the day when it's at night. Strike three, batter out. Greenhouse gas emission not only explains the *directions* it not accurately predicts the *degrees*. It's very well supported and there is no scientific alternative.

Sorry, not a chance there.

The Little Ice Age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Earth is on the upward temp curve of a multi-century climatic cycle, and that cycle will go down, then up, and then down ... ad infinitum. It has been doing this for more revolutions of the sun than you can grasp. These cycles are well known from recorded history.


Source article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000 ... arison.png

As anyone can see, Earth, and sub-regions of Earth, are observed to go through heating and cooling cycles, both multi-decadic and multi-century, which have vary little, if anything at all, to do with anthropogenic causation.

Earth itself has shown us that we are seeing the results of multi-century overlapping and mutually interfering, (enhancing and cancelling) regional and global climatic cycles.

Like I said, there are two cycles that affect global temperatures - and neither can possibly be responsible for what's happening now. Please explain how any known - or even hypothesized! - natural cycle can produce the current geographical and temporal pattern of variation.

Further, that graph makes it painfully obvious that what happened in the last century is decidedly UNtypical of climate variation in the past. Did you even look at the graph before you posted it? PS Wikipedia is a poor reference because anybody can piddle with it.

Science is defined by making predictions and testing them against reality. GW theories are meeting the test; they are science. "Cycle" theories of current warming make such outrageously wrong predictions that people don't even publish them. Not only do they goof all the characteristics I pointed out earlier Milankovitch predicts we should be cooling constantly and sun activity predicts we should have been cooling since 2002. Oops! The few remaining opponents of GW in climatology don't want to humiliate themselves and refute their theories by putting them to the test. So they yack on talk shows - but do no science on global warming.

[Jim Hughes]

Global warming IMO has everything to do with it as far as us having more intense storms...The earth's average temp is getting warmer....SO THE SST'S are warmer...Do we humans have anything to do with it??? I think it is just a cycle....

Well, maybe we can debate this in the off season. Suffice it to say I disagree, and I would say the great preponderance of the evidence disagrees.

Well I am using stone age methods for my conclusions....This summer IMO has been the warmest I can rememeber...And I said that last year....I went to the beach and the water was warmer than I've ever seen it...So in my little part of the planet it is indeed warmer...And this years SST'S in the hurricane zones were warmer than norm.Thus part of the reason on such intense storms...I'm not on the Global warming bandwagon as far as we are the primary cause..But I believe the planet is indeed warmer and continueing to get even warmer...If this is the case I wonder if 5 years from now will 200 mph super canes be a norm...

Everything in nature is cyclical but we all like to dwelll on what is hapening today.... or this year. The younger forum members may have heard this before but they were not around to hear all of the hype regarding the possible mini ice age we were entering in the mid 70's. The weather was cooler so many climate experts also jumped on that bandwagon and we all know what hapened.

The Atlantic is warmer right now and this will go by the wayside one day just like the warmer temperatures will.


Jim

[x-y-no]

Everything in nature is cyclical but we all like to dwelll on what is hapening today.... or this year. The younger forum members may have heard this before but they were not around to hear all of the hype regarding the possible mini ice age we were entering in the mid 70's. The weather was cooler so many climate experts also jumped on that bandwagon and we all know what hapened.

The Atlantic is warmer right now and this will go by the wayside one day just like the warmer temperatures will.


Jim

Jim, I witnessed much of that history first hand. I attended the solar neutrino crisis conference on Miami Beach in 1976. I discussed these issues personally with researchers like Kirk Bryan, Suki Manabe and yes, my father, at the time they were developing.

It's disingenuous at best to equate the concern over possible climate cooling which was a serious discussed and researched issue for a period in the 70's prior to the development of even the first practical global numerical climate model with the decades of research which have been done since. And I'll say from personal observation that the characerization that "climate experts jumped on that bandwagon" in anything like the consensus which has gradually developed on the issue of anthropogenic global warming is pure nonsense.

[hookemfins]

Well I'm in the camp of taking any pre 1940 hurricain data with a huge grain of salt personally. However even if the old data is correct it matters not.

None.
I think the pre 1940 data may not only be fairly accurate but maybe understated. I'm sure there were storms that went unaccounted for.

In 1886 there were 12 storms and in 1887 there were 19. In 1886 three hurricanes struck the same area of the FL panhandle and another N of Tampa. That same year four hit TX (Brownsville, near Corpus, near Port Arthur and just near where Rita hit. Was that GW?

Was the 1935 Key West monster or the 1926 Miami storm GW?

In the 1940's there were 24 hurricanes (10 majors) that hit the US. So far, with a little more than half the decade over, we have had 12 hurricanes hit the US (5 majors). We are just now in a cycle similar to the 30's-60's as has been predicted. Cycles are cycles and we are in one of higher frequency. Sometimes cycles become extreme. In 1933 they didn't blame GW and so far that year is still the record holder for the number of cyclones.

I also think that we just don't know enough of the previous climates in the earlier centuries to judge. While I question the source of that chart above, I think there were other warm perioids and this just might be one of them.

[Jim Hughes]

Jim, I witnessed much of that history first hand. I attended the solar neutrino crisis conference on Miami Beach in 1976. I discussed these issues personally with researchers like Kirk Bryan, Suki Manabe and yes, my father, at the time they were developing.

It's disingenuous at best to equate the concern over possible climate cooling which was a serious discussed and researched issue for a period in the 70's prior to the development of even the first practical global numerical climate model with the decades of research which have been done since. And I'll say from personal observation that the characerization that "climate experts jumped on that bandwagon" in anything like the consensus which has gradually developed on the issue of anthropogenic global warming is pure nonsense.

Well I may have stretched it a little so technically you are right about the percentage of the mainstream but you also have to consider today's technological factor....not computers models. The public's opinion in almost all facets of life moves in packs today.

Science..... like news travels faster and opinions are swayed by concenus or who they admire or respect. This is a fact of life. You can see it in this forum with the NHC. The majority do not like people to talk bad about them. Somebody like ACCUWEATHER, or should I say Joe B (Whom I have never heard about until the past two months and I could care less about. ) can get raked over the coals for some of the same things that the NHC has done.

The seeds for global warming have been planted in the minds of everybody for the past decade and it has gotten to the point where some people seem to think that you have to disprove that it is not occuring. Mind you I have not come to any final conclusions either way but I am not going to disregard many of the other possible factors.



Jim

[coriolis]

I like a chemistry debate...NOTE THIS IS
CLIMO-CHEMISTRY NOT POLITICS:

Enhanced methane content of the atmosphere intensifies storms, regardless of whether or not its emission is caused by man or nature. Recall that prehistorically prior to the production of oxygen by prolific cyanobacteria the atmosphere was filled with methane, ammonia, and H-2 and other gases and had too much violent weather activity to support anything more than the bacteria....



The reduced nature of methane renders it unstable, and thus in any reaction can give off quite a bit of Gibbs Free energy, its instability renders its Delta (change in) Gibbs Free energy in a reaction negative, since the Product energy-reactant energy < 0 since the product has much less energy than the reactants. Methane has powerful capabilities.



The impacts of Methane are felt in ACTIVE CYCLONE DECADE CYCLES ONLY (WITH REGARDS TO HURRICANES)....During inactive periods like 1970-1990 the atmospheric conditions are so unfavorable for hurricane development that not even methane can stimulate the development through increased warming or etc..!



The tremendous amount of Gibbs free energy as indicated by Delta G in methane reactions is due to methane structure. Methane is heavily reduced (not oxidized at all) and reduced hydrocarbons contain intense energy potential. Methane when it reacts is highly exothermic, meaning it is capable of giving off a large amount of heat (thus the products of a reaction involving methane contain much less energy, as that energy was released in the form of heat, which explains why methane oxidation reactions are SPONTANEOUS, the heat availabe in methane's constituent hydrocarbons are just BEGGING TO BE RELEASED!)



Methane is not the only dangerous pollutant out there. But I place emphasis on it here because it is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of implications for global warming.

It's energy from the breakdown of methane and other hydrocarbonic molecules that increases heat and energy available to power a storm. Although this is not the only factor, it certainly plays an important role in exacerbating the impacts of other deleterious hurricane-intensifying factors (Oscillations, Solar Energy, Ionospheric Conductivity and Oceanic Coupling, etc.).

Methane also has large enthalpy release magnitude values that
are negative in nature, indicative of heat release and substantial chemical corroboration of my earlier claims.

Tampa Bay: What is the mechanism by which the energy is released? Methane is fairly stable at normal conditions. It takes an energy input to break those covalent bonds to allow it to be oxidized. What gives it the push it needs?

Methane reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide in air. But allow
me to digress.
Energy from the breakdown of methane is released also through
combustion factories.
Well since it is 8 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas
it amplifies the greenhouse effect, heating the tropical regions and
tropical oceans much faster, even without breaking down.

See above highlighted statement. that's what I'm asking about. How does that happen? I understand the combustion stuff. As a fuel, methane (natural gas) has positive attributes because it doesn't produce nitrogen oxides. But I digress too, please address how the methane oxidizes in the atmosphere. I got the impression that you were arguing that the heat produced thereby is a factor in global heating

[Steve]

I didn't read the thread, but put me down in the "maybe some" camp. The researcher (that black dude from the NHC that was on Larry King a few weeks ago) mentioned that there are several credible studies that are now pointing in that direction. On the other hand, net tropical activity from a global perspective is slightly down (per Dr. William Gray). More heat means more fuel for storms, but it will be a while before that stuff is compeltely verifiable. What I didn't like was the study that only factored in 1970 stuff which was the year following the last ATH cycle after the 40's-60's years and the beginning of the last downturn period that lasted probably through 1994.

Steve

[HurricaneJoe22]

anyone sick of hearing this debate and ready to hurl?

[caribepr]

anyone sick of hearing this debate and ready to hurl?

Actually, I think that also is an impact on global warming...or some sort of warming. Control yourself!

[Recurve]

There was no choice for "I don't know, and neither does anybody else."

But I don't think it's a good thing to significantly impact earth's atmosphere with pollutants and substances that alter its thermal characteristics. There's little doubt among scientists that human civilization is doing that.

Are hurricanes more frequent or intense because gasses accumulated in the atmosphere are trapping heat? Let's see, hurricanes are giant heat engines driven by oceanic heat content, well, hmmmm, maybe it's not such an easily dismissed theory.

[oneness]

Global heating and cooling are cyclic, it just so happens we are on the heating side of a cycle.

What heating cycle? There are two cycles affecting global temperature- solar activity and Milankovitch. Neither can be causing the current warming because, as radiative heating, they predict the opposite of almost every observable aspect of the current warming - greater heating in the tropics when it's in the Arctic, greater heating during summer when it's in winter, and greater heating in the day when it's at night. Strike three, batter out. Greenhouse gas emission not only explains the *directions* it not accurately predicts the *degrees*. It's very well supported and there is no scientific alternative.

Sorry, not a chance there.

The Little Ice Age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Earth is on the upward temp curve of a multi-century climatic cycle, and that cycle will go down, then up, and then down ... ad infinitum. It has been doing this for more revolutions of the sun than you can grasp. These cycles are well known from recorded history.


Source article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000 ... arison.png

As anyone can see, Earth, and sub-regions of Earth, are observed to go through heating and cooling cycles, both multi-decadic and multi-century, which have vary little, if anything at all, to do with anthropogenic causation.

Earth itself has shown us that we are seeing the results of multi-century overlapping and mutually interfering, (enhancing and cancelling) regional and global climatic cycles.

Like I said, there are two cycles that affect global temperatures - and neither can possibly be responsible for what's happening now. Please explain how any known - or even hypothesized! - natural cycle can produce the current geographical and temporal pattern of variation.

Further, that graph makes it painfully obvious that what happened in the last century is decidedly UNtypical of climate variation in the past. Did you even look at the graph before you posted it? PS Wikipedia is a poor reference because anybody can piddle with it.

Science is defined by making predictions and testing them against reality. GW theories are meeting the test; they are science. "Cycle" theories of current warming make such outrageously wrong predictions that people don't even publish them. Not only do they goof all the characteristics I pointed out earlier Milankovitch predicts we should be cooling constantly and sun activity predicts we should have been cooling since 2002. Oops! The few remaining opponents of GW in climatology don't want to humiliate themselves and refute their theories by putting them to the test. So they yack on talk shows - but do no science on global warming.

You asked "what cycle?", and there it is displayed. If you feel this graph, and those in the links support a view that global warming is anthropogenic, then please feel free to use it for that purpose.

[x-y-no]

You asked "what cycle?", and there it is displayed. If you feel this graph, and those in the links support a view that global warming is anthropogenic, then please feel free to use it for that purpose.

Actually, that graph is one example of the famous "hockey stick" which was vociferously (and in the end ineffectually) attacked by AGW skeptics precisely because it does support the thesis that the current warming trend is outside of the usual cycles.

Specifically, the current warm anomaly is greater than the peak of the previous maxima, and the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the record.

[vacanechaser]

Voted none at all. If this season is the result of global warming, what about 1933 or 1887 (whether or not the storms were valid)?

Could not agree with you more. I am so tired of hearing global warming, I want to puke... This debate of hurricanes being worse than ever is un-founded really.. How do you know that for sure?? We did not start flying planes out there until what late 40's 50's?? Plus, look at the tools we have now compared to that day in time. We had no satellites. We did not think Hurricane Andrew was a cat 5 until 10 years had passed because we found out after research and new technology, that the winds were 80% at the surface and not the 60 or 65% once thought. The planet just like everything else has cycles. We came out of a mini ice age in the late 1800's which only suggests that the temperature of the planet would rise naturally. Now I am sure there are some things that we as humans are doing that are not good for the planet, but the arogance of man to think we are bigger than everything else and have total and complete control or effect on this planet is rediculous.

Even Max Mayfield said on MSNBC that he did not believe all of this is from global warming, just a natural cycle.


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

[vacanechaser]

You asked "what cycle?", and there it is displayed. If you feel this graph, and those in the links support a view that global warming is anthropogenic, then please feel free to use it for that purpose.

Actually, that graph is one example of the famous "hockey stick" which was vociferously (and in the end ineffectually) attacked by AGW skeptics precisely because it does support the thesis that the current warming trend is outside of the usual cycles.

Specifically, the current warm anomaly is greater than the peak of the previous maxima, and the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the record.

But see, one thing that bothers me is, how do we know the data from all those years ago is correct?? I just don't see how that can be that accurate. And I dont want to hear the thing of core samples or any thing else like that either. There is no way that a human doing the test can say for sure on any of that with certainty that such and such is true or happened without actually taking the reading as it happened IMO. It all depends on who is doing the sampling on what kind of results you get. Makes no sense to me. I suppose that since the hurricanes have returned and that we have seen the return of snow here to the Mid-Atlantic states like we saw during the 40's and 50's that that comes from global warming too then?? Whatever.. Try telling that to the folks with no heat last Christmas with a foot of snow on the ground here and temps in the teens. Some of the coldest winters I can remember. I use to wear shorts on Christmas as a kid here some years.


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

[Jim Hughes]

Try telling that to the folks with no heat last Christmas with a foot of snow on the ground here and temps in the teens. Some of the coldest winters I can remember. I use to wear shorts on Christmas as a kid here some years.


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

While you were cooler some other areas just to your north were warmer than average. One must look at the whole not the parts. OTOH I still believe everyone is disregarding the space weather factor. Yes I know the EXACT scientific relationship has not been proven.... as of yet.

We have been recently been seeing the highest solar activity/space weather in the past 1,000 years or more and the temperature swings during this time period coincided with their waxing and waning.

I might also add that it will be real hard to find any type of relationship when the big dogs are not looking for it...or looking in the wrong areas. The problem starts at the top. The community as a whole lacks a visionary. They have been taught in a conservative like manner and only a maverick type scientific researcher is going to crack the relationship. They need to stray from the so called golden rules.


Jim