What part do you think Global Warming is playing?

[x-y-no]

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...

Hmm ... personal nausea hardly seems an objective standard of evaluation.

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.

You do the best job you can with the data you have. If we were to insist on perfect data, we would never do any research whatsoever, and would therefore never advance our knowledge at all.

Several lines of research, for example that of Dr. Kerry Emanuel ( who's FAQ page I linked to above) has endeavored to extend the data set backwards. Obviously, the further you go the higher the uncertainty - but does that mean one shouldn't make the effort, or that one should ignore the results? His most recent paper on the cumulative power dissipation of TCs worldwide uses a data set reaching back to 1950, during the previous Atlantic maximum.

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.

The existence of natural cycles says nothing about the possibility of any additional anthropogenic forcing, or of the relative size of that forcing. If objective attempts to quantify that forcing give results which suggest that it comparable or even larger than the natural cycles, that's not arrogance, that's science.

As for "total and complete control" - that's a straw man. Show me who claims any such thing.

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

Nor do I know of anyone else who says "all of this is from global warming." Once again, the existence of natural cycles says nothing about the possibility of any additional anthropogenic forcing. Nobody denies the existence of natural cycles. Their existence is no refutation of the case for AGW.

[x-y-no]

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.

If I'm understanding you correctly, this seems a profoundly anti-scientific attitude. Are we not allowed to make reasoned inferences regarding continuity in how trees grow, or how sediments build up on the ocean bottom? How far does this uncertainty extend? Can we not conclude, for example, that the chemical elements or subatomic particles existed and obeyed the same laws even before we discovered them?

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

Oh come on! I'm sure you're well aware of the distinction between regional and global climate, and that the two do not respond in lockstep. Frankly, this argument is beneath you.

[vacanechaser]

You do the best job you can with the data you have. If we were to insist on perfect data, we would never do any research whatsoever, and would therefore never advance our knowledge at all.

Several lines of research, particularly that of Dr. Kerry Emanuel ( who's FAQ page I linked to above) has endeavored to extend the data set backwards. Obviously, the further you go the higher the uncertainty - but does that mean one shouldn't make the effort, or that one should ignore the results? His most recent paper on the cumulative power dissipation of TCs worldwide uses a data set reaching back to 1950, during the previous Atlantic maximum.

My point is that the data for no uncertain terms is either incomplete or incorrect. But who determins what is correct or not? Who determins, "well we will use this data set, but not this for whatever reason"? It all goes back to who is doing the study and who payed for it basiclly. You get the results you payed for.

The existence of natural cycles says nothing about the possibility of any additional anthropogenic forcing, or of the relative size of that forcing. If objective attempts to quantify that forcing give results which suggest that it comparable or even larger than the natural cycles, that's not arrogance, that's science.

As for "total and complete control" - that's a straw man. Show me who claims any such thing.

I didnt say any one person claimed any such thing. It is human beings as a whole that are arrogant. just look at all the people who want to live and or rebuild where a hurricane can come along and destroy their homes once again. It is the though that we are bigger and better than mother nature and that we will win, we will prevail. And you know better than that. It may be another 20-30-40 years before they see another storm like these. But this will all play out once again and the arrogance of man will rebuild once again and think they will stop it once again because we are the master beings on the planet. There are things bigger than us.

Nor do I know of anyone else who says "all of this is from global warming." Once again, the existence of natural cycles says nothing about the possibility of any additional anthropogenic forcing. Nobody denies the existence of natural cycles. Their existence is no refutation of the case for AGW.

Maybe you dont know them personnaly, however, they are out there. You read it in the paper, see it on the news. Some scientists, and researchers say they believe it is a direct cause of "global warming". Funny how the debate of global warming has turned now from a direct cause of man kind, to now a cause of several things, plus man kind. Thats all I herd was that man was to blame a few years ago, and now that has seemed to change.

If it is a cause of global warming, explain why the other basins are below normal in development over the past several years. The West Pac seems busy, but that is because they have been effecting more land areas, just like they have here this season. I guess the Atlantic now is the cause of global warming. If it was as big a deal as some one like us to believe, the net tropical cyclone activity would be well above normal world wide and it is not.

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

[x-y-no]

My point is that the data for no uncertain terms is either incomplete or incorrect. But who determins what is correct or not? Who determins, "well we will use this data set, but not this for whatever reason"? It all goes back to who is doing the study and who payed for it basiclly. You get the results you payed for.

Hmmm ... that would seem to be a stronger argument against some of the prominent skeptics being funded by the energy industry than it is against researchers being funded by DOD or the Department of Commerce.

Maybe you dont know them personnaly, however, they are out there. You read it in the paper, see it on the news. Some scientists, and researchers say they believe it is a direct cause of "global warming". Funny how the debate of global warming has turned now from a direct cause of man kind, to now a cause of several things, plus man kind. Thats all I herd was that man was to blame a few years ago, and now that has seemed to change.

I've been around, spoken with and read the published work of many of the researchers in this field over the last three decades, and all I can say is that all these issues have been part of the discussion for that entire period. I can't account for your impression otherwise, I can only report that this impression is wrong.

If it is a cause of global warming, explain why the other basins are below normal in development over the past several years. The West Pac seems busy, but that is because they have been effecting more land areas, just like they have here this season. I guess the Atlantic now is the cause of global warming. If it was as big a deal as some one like us to believe, the net tropical cyclone activity would be well above normal world wide and it is not.

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation is not the only natural cycle, merely the most dramatic WRT tropical cyclogenesis.

Also, the western Pacific in particular would be expected to show a lower response to incremental increases in SSTs, since the water there is already much warmer than it is in the EPAC and Atlantic.

That said, the data does indicate that the total energy of TCs worldwide has increased very significantly, even relative to 1950 during the peak of the previous Atlantic maximum.

[jasons2k]

Jan,

You seem like a nice, educated person and I respect your opinions. You contribute a lot of valuable information to the board.

But please stop being so friggin' arrogant. That comment "this argument is beneath you" is the epitome of arrogance and meaness. I've noticed this behavior all season. You always have to have the last word.

-JS

[x-y-no]

Jan,

You seem like a nice, educated person and I respect your opinions. You contribute a lot of valuable information to the board.

But please stop being so friggin' arrogant. That comment "this argument is beneath you" is the epitome of arrogance and meaness. I've noticed this behavior all season. You always have to have the last word.

-JS

Well, I'm sorry if you took it that way. This was not how it was meant - quite the opposite.

Jesse is not a fool, and I have a lot of respect for his knowledge of weather. Therefore, I was dismayed to see an argument of that form coming from him, when I cannot conceive that he is not aware of the fallacy involved in it.

I do indeed think that argument is beneath him.

[CentralFlGal]

Global warming is itself part of a cycle of alternating cooling and warming. I think the influence human activities have on this cycle is far less than we've been made to believe.

Globe's been getting warmer ever since the last ice age.

It's pure hubris to think we are big enough to adversely affect natural patterns on a planet we've only been on for a blink of an eye, geologically speaking. My own theory is that the dinosaurs had more of an affect due to their numbers and size by the simple act of passing gas.

Poor cavemen.

[Downdraft]

With all the hot air coming out of Barbra Streisand no wonder we have global warming.

[oneness]

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

Many stars (if not all stars) vary their luminescence and also shift spectral peaks with time. Varying both in size and energy output, small oscillations, large oscillations, short-period and long-period—for reasons unknown. We don't know what is ‘normal’ for the Sun. There have not been photometers taking precise, objective measurements for anywhere near long enough to know how the Sun’s photon flux may vary.

For GW-ers to presume cyclic mechanisms are all known and all modelled … ?

Obviously not.

Who had a photometer logging data during the trough of the last cooling phase? Non-visible IR light wasn’t even discovered experimentally until 1800, so why this presumption that the currently observed 1,366 W/m²/sec at sea level on earth is effectively a constant input, when observations of other nearby stars suggest it would be peculiar if this really were constant?

Let's say 1 Watt, less, or else more, over a period of say, 2-3 centuries ... no model is modelling that, but this change in flux may be the actual case.

[jasons2k]

With all the hot air coming out of Barbra Streisand no wonder we have global warming.

[x-y-no]

Many stars (if not all stars) vary their luminescence and also shift spectral peaks with time. Varying both in size and energy output, small oscillations, large oscillations, short-period and long-period—for reasons unknown. We don't know what is ‘normal’ for the Sun. There have not been photometers taking precise, objective measurements for anywhere near long enough to know how the Sun’s photon flux may vary.

For GW-ers to presume cyclic mechanisms are all known and all modelled … ?

Obviously not.

Who had a photometer logging data during the trough of the last cooling phase? Non-visible IR light wasn’t even discovered experimentally until 1800, so why this presumption that the currently observed 1,366 W/m²/sec at sea level on earth is effectively a constant input, when observations of other nearby stars suggest it would be peculiar if this really were constant?

Let's say 1 Watt, less, or else more, over a period of say, 2-3 centuries ... no model is modelling that, but this change in flux may be the actual case.

The absence of direct means of detection does not mean we are completely ignorant of past solar activity. Proxy data - in particular concentrations of Beryllium 10 in ice cores and Carbon 14 in tree rings - give a fair understanding when averaged over large geographical areas.

[caribepr]

This was on the BBC website today...interesting in light of (oops, I'm punning out here) the thread...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

[Dr. Jonah Rainwater]

I think there would be a much stronger case for global warming if we didn't keep hearing all these studies based on joke science. I mean, if that recent study had compared 1995-2005 to, say, 1955-1965, then maybe we'd actually learn something.

In Alaska, the damage goes far beyond 30 year climate cycles. Natives who have lived there for thousands of years say that, just in the past 30 years, dramatic climate change has destroyed their way of life. You can't really argue with that. After thousands of years of mostly homeostasis in the climate up there, that all of a sudden things are falling apart suggests that something new has been introduced into the balance.

I'm not even suggesting it's humans.

But regardless of what's to blame, stronger US landfalling storms are a fact of life now. Suddenly it seems that 2004 wasn't the fluke season, but rather 1995-2003 was the fluke. It may only be as active as the 50s and 60s were. We also have something like 10 times the population living in hurricane-prone areas now. Out of the 10 costliest hurricanes in US history, adjusted for inflation, six of them were in the past two years. Even Category Ones, like Ophelia, or Katrina over Florida, are costing billions of dollars now. Insurance corporations, hotel chains, the entire oil industry...they're all taking notice, and are making huge changes in their risk-assessments. Regardless of whether or not we think global warming is the cause...even 20 more years of naturally enhanced hurricanes would be too much for our nation to handle. Imagine if Carol, Edna, and Hazel had hit this year. We need to start building levees and stronger buildings now, before some other city becomes known as "the next New Orleans".

Personally, I think that, if there is a link between human activity and changing weather patterns, I'd rather we find out now rather than later.

[arcticfire]

I think there would be a much stronger case for global warming if we didn't keep hearing all these studies based on joke science. I mean, if that recent study had compared 1995-2005 to, say, 1955-1965, then maybe we'd actually learn something.

In Alaska, the damage goes far beyond 30 year climate cycles. Natives who have lived there for thousands of years say that, just in the past 30 years, dramatic climate change has destroyed their way of life. You can't really argue with that. After thousands of years of mostly homeostasis in the climate up there, that all of a sudden things are falling apart suggests that something new has been introduced into the balance.

I'm not even suggesting it's humans.

But regardless of what's to blame, stronger US landfalling storms are a fact of life now. Suddenly it seems that 2004 wasn't the fluke season, but rather 1995-2003 was the fluke. It may only be as active as the 50s and 60s were. We also have something like 10 times the population living in hurricane-prone areas now. Out of the 10 costliest hurricanes in US history, adjusted for inflation, six of them were in the past two years. Even Category Ones, like Ophelia, or Katrina over Florida, are costing billions of dollars now. Insurance corporations, hotel chains, the entire oil industry...they're all taking notice, and are making huge changes in their risk-assessments. Regardless of whether or not we think global warming is the cause...even 20 more years of naturally enhanced hurricanes would be too much for our nation to handle. Imagine if Carol, Edna, and Hazel had hit this year. We need to start building levees and stronger buildings now, before some other city becomes known as "the next New Orleans".

Personally, I think that, if there is a link between human activity and changing weather patterns, I'd rather we find out now rather than later.

Just to make a small correction about the alaska natives. Think hundreds of years not thousands. Remember your talking about a people who's main form of information passing is threw stories. Ever played the game telephone ? Plus alaska is huge , absolutly monumentally huge , there are no big stories of rivalries between the native tribes up here over land that I've heard. Given the bleak and uniform look of the north slope , I'd expect the tribes have been moving location far more often then they might think. So in the end I'd say their homes for hundreds of years , but not thousands.

Not that it's not a big deal mind you. A family member of mine works for BLM , and there are many native tribes that layed claim to chuncks of ice shelf up there that is now vanishing into the ocean. So they really are being displaced form homes their tribe has had for a long long time (even before they "claimed" it).

[vacanechaser]

This is going to be the last thing I have to say about it today,

Jan, I guess your scientific back up if you will, would be coming from models tested and run on certain parameters that are known and speculated. I have seen the discussions on TV about this model shows this and this one shows that,

If the model running the data is so good, and all you global warming folks out there put so much trust into those, then how about making a model that can predict the weather accuratley. I mean really, and dont say there are no models or model data to show the global warming scenario. If the numbers are wrong or even off to a decimal point, then the whole thing is off. There was an article posted here at the beginning of the season talking about the very same thing and some people who once thought that global warming scenario was correct and as bad as you guys would have all of us believe, sadly had to say that they may have been wrong because the theroy that was used to come up with the overall temperature increase was off. And their new findings showed a much slower increase than what has been discussed. Of course I will be flamed because I dont have the link that someone posted on this very board back early i the year, but I read it for myself. And of course it was burried in some news paper.

jschlitz wrote:

Jan,

You seem like a nice, educated person and I respect your opinions. You contribute a lot of valuable information to the board.

But please stop being so friggin' arrogant. That comment "this argument is beneath you" is the epitome of arrogance and meaness. I've noticed this behavior all season. You always have to have the last word.

-JS

Your correct about that js. As long as you agree, you are fine, but as soon as you step out of bounds, you get the scientific look down her nose at you and slapped apon the face. Thats how these people try to persuade people in to believing their view point. Make YOU feel beneath them with there big talk and education, and them maybe you will feel maybe they are right and change your tune. I tried to get my point across without being snippy or rude, but thats just how the left react is rude and make you feel like dirt under their feet. And they claim to be for the little people.

I dont have a college degree to fall back on here, so maybe I am not Educated enough for my two cents in this thread, however, I listen, read and learn by doing it myself. I guess common sense and street smarts does not apply to their way of thinking sometimes. If you dont have scientific data to support what you say or believe and they do, well your just wrong. Their the educated ones remember??


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

[iceangel]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Is Global Warming Making Hurricanes Worse?

John Roach
for National Geographic News

August 4, 2005
Hurricanes bring winds and slashing rains that flood streets, flatten homes, and leave survivors struggling to pick up the pieces. But has global warming given the storms an added punch, making the aftereffects more dreadful?

According to hurricane historian Jay Barnes of Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina, ocean heat is the key ingredient for hurricane formation. More heat could "generate more storms and more intense hurricanes," he said.


Numerous studies in recent years have found no evidence that the number of hurricanes and their northwest Pacific Ocean cousins, typhoons, is increasing because of the rise in global temperatures.

But a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures.

The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

One possibility, Emanuel said, is that ocean temperatures may be increasing more quickly than atmospheric temperatures.

"When that happens we've shown theoretically you get an increase in the intensity of hurricanes," he said.

Anatomy of a Hurricane

According to Barnes, who has authored several books on U.S. hurricane history, the physics of hurricanes are complex and full of variables. "But the sun beating down on Earth is the primary thing that gets it going," he said.

Barnes explains in his book North Carolina's Hurricane History that the summer heat warms the ocean's surface and spurs evaporation. As heat and moisture rise into the atmosphere, billowing clouds, scattered showers, and thunderstorms form.


CONTINUED 1 | 2 Next >> (if you want to continue. please use the link)

[Derek Ortt]

saw somethig on the history channel on their Katrina night a few weeks ago where they had a prof from former New Orleans University where he suggested not only are there the decadal oscillations, but longer time cycles (which makes sense if it is sinusoidal and time dependent) of about 1500 years, based upon the sediment deposits on the marsh south of the remains of New Orleans of about 1500 years. He suggested that we are on the tail end of a long term quiet period, which means we may have just entered a 1500 year active period, with the decadal active period. Something that should be investigated further

[x-y-no]

This is going to be the last thing I have to say about it today,

Jan, I guess your scientific back up if you will, would be coming from models tested and run on certain parameters that are known and speculated. I have seen the discussions on TV about this model shows this and this one shows that,

If the model running the data is so good, and all you global warming folks out there put so much trust into those, then how about making a model that can predict the weather accuratley.

Actually, if you looked at weather models for aggregate values like the global average surface temperature, I expect they would be extraordinarily accurate. Predicting mesoscale (or even synoptic scale) weather is a very different and vastly more complex task than the question of average climate though.

I mean really, and dont say there are no models or model data to show the global warming scenario. If the numbers are wrong or even off to a decimal point, then the whole thing is off. There was an article posted here at the beginning of the season talking about the very same thing and some people who once thought that global warming scenario was correct and as bad as you guys would have all of us believe, sadly had to say that they may have been wrong because the theroy that was used to come up with the overall temperature increase was off. And their new findings showed a much slower increase than what has been discussed. Of course I will be flamed because I dont have the link that someone posted on this very board back early i the year, but I read it for myself. And of course it was burried in some news paper.

It's hardly surprising that earlier models, neccesarily simplified due to the far more limited computing power of the time, and lacking the benefit of the intervening years of research regarding the relative importance of various forcing factors, would have been less accurate.

...

Your correct about that js. As long as you agree, you are fine, but as soon as you step out of bounds, you get the scientific look down her nose at you and slapped apon the face. Thats how these people try to persuade people in to believing their view point. Make YOU feel beneath them with there big talk and education, and them maybe you will feel maybe they are right and change your tune. I tried to get my point across without being snippy or rude, but thats just how the left react is rude and make you feel like dirt under their feet. And they claim to be for the little people.

Well excuse me, but I found a number of your posts in this thread snippy and rude beginning with the puking reference, yet chose to draw no generalized conclusions about "the right" and how they act.

The particular comment jshlitz was reacting to was not at all a put-down of you - only genuine astonishment that someone with as much knowledge as you have displayed could make the argument that local climate would be expected to correlate with global climate. If I didn't have respect for your intellect, I would hardly have been so astonished at the use of such a fundamentally flawed argument.

PS: Surely you recall I'm a "he" not a "she".

[x-y-no]

saw somethig on the history channel on their Katrina night a few weeks ago where they had a prof from former New Orleans University where he suggested not only are there the decadal oscillations, but longer time cycles (which makes sense if it is sinusoidal and time dependent) of about 1500 years, based upon the sediment deposits on the marsh south of the remains of New Orleans of about 1500 years. He suggested that we are on the tail end of a long term quiet period, which means we may have just entered a 1500 year active period, with the decadal active period. Something that should be investigated further

Well that sounds very interesting. I'll see what I can find out about that.

[curtadams]

Is Global Warming Making Hurricanes Worse?

John Roach
for National Geographic News

Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

One possibility, Emanuel said, is that ocean temperatures may be increasing more quickly than atmospheric temperatures.

"When that happens we've shown theoretically you get an increase in the intensity of hurricanes," he said.

The stratosphere is certainly cooling, for two reasons. First, greenhouse gases reduce IR heating from below and second, ozone depletion reduces UV absorption. I've seen estimates of 3 degrees centigrade. Wouldn't that give storms substantial oomph at the very top? Better news long-term as currently ozone depletion is the primary driver and that's supposed to be near-peak, rather than predicted to triple over the next century like the CO2 anamoly.