Hurricanes and Global Warming with Dr. Gray

[x-y-no]

I guess one of the biggest arguements to the Global Warming to Hurricane relationship is that there hasn't been an increase in tropical activity globally. While the Atlantic basin activity has increased the past few years there's not been a corresponding increase in activity in other basins.

That's a valid point. OTOH, there's some reason to think that would be the case at least in the WPAC basin, since the waters there are already extremely warm (rendering an incremental increase far less significant than in an area with marginal capacity to support tropical cyclones).

[thermos]

I interviewed Dr. Gray this past May, he told me...GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CREATING MORE HURRICANES. Its the media...this DOOM AND GLOOM.

The media?? Where do you get this stuff. Go ahead and look up scientific organization after scientific organization on the web and then look at their position on global warming. http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_pu ... idence.htm

How is it doom and gloom when the media is citing scientific data? The companies actively spending money to quiet speculation about global warming and paying scientist to produce reports against global warming are the companies that produce enormous amounts of pollution.

This idea that the media is hyping global warming is absurd. Quit being a lackey for the big oil and cement companies and look at the rise in pollution from the plastic contaminating the sea to the rise in mercury in the water to the soaring asthma rates in children.

How can you possibly believe that man cannot have an impact on the environment? Because it is exactly what big polluting industries want you to believe.

[Ivanhater]

how do we know that global warming might not be a cycle as well? like the ice age.....most experts believe we are in an active hurricane cycle and these active and inactive periods have been taking place since creation(or whatever you believe)....do we have enough data to make a conclusion right now...i guess this is why it is such a debate

[x-y-no]

how do we know that global warming might not be a cycle as well? like the ice age.....most experts believe we are in an active hurricane cycle and these active and inactive periods have been taking place since creation(or whatever you believe)....do we have enough data to make a conclusion right now...i guess this is why it is such a debate

The answer is that natural cycles and anthropogenic global warming are not mutually exclusive. Rather they are superimposed effects.

It is indisputable that the observed increase in primary atmospheric greenhouse gasses is attributable to human activity, and the role of those gasses in the global radiative balance is well understood, and the climate models developed over the last couple of decades have done a good job of fitting historical data as well as short term prediction, so I think it takes some extraordinary justification at this point to claim that AGW is not a reality.

[Ivanhater]

how do we know that global warming might not be a cycle as well? like the ice age.....most experts believe we are in an active hurricane cycle and these active and inactive periods have been taking place since creation(or whatever you believe)....do we have enough data to make a conclusion right now...i guess this is why it is such a debate

The answer is that natural cycles and anthropoginic global warming are not mutually exclusive. Rather they are superimposed effects.

It is indisputable that the observed increase in primary atmospheric greenhouse gasses is attributable to human activity, and the role of those gasses in the global radiative balance is well understood, and the climate models developed over the last couple of decades have done a good job of fitting historical data as well as short term prediction, so I think it takes some extraordinary justification at this point to claim that AGW is not a reality.

thanks xy, you use some terminology a little hard to grasp, but i think i know what your saying while i agree that humans may have a part in global warming, but i guess the question is how much of a part? i just dont know if we have enough data to prove if this is a cycle or human induced, i mean we havnt been keeping records that long in the grand scheme of things....just something im pondering to get ready for my paper on this

[Weatherfreak000]

Yeah well it's hard to believe the storms we've been having this year are "anything but ordinary".



However, I will abide by this argument. But I definitely expect a whole lot more destruction and at LEAST one major hurricane landfall next year.




It's not like you can even compare 2004 and 1933 to 05 anyway.



I mean come on people, 04 just barely got up to Otto. Looking over the count I see what...


2 Depressions

8 canes

7 Storms



This looks kind of ridiculously average from my point of view don't you agree?


I mean geez we went 15 storms deep when Ophelia was born. (on my birthday no less).


Look at 1933 anyway...


11 Tropical Storms

5 Minimal Canes

4 Major (none breaking 5 status)


And for 05...


2 Depressions...


10 Tropical Storms....


6 Minimal Hurricanes


7 Major Hurricanes.









Yeah I said SEVEN MAJOR HURRICANES. THREE CAT 5.








If that plus Vince plus the heat records from Wilma don't satisfy you then I don't know what will. I guess you guys won't be satisfied until we get a 200 MPH Cane and finally someone will admit something is going on.

[Ivanhater]

Yeah well it's hard to believe the storms we've been having this year are "anything but ordinary".



However, I will abide by this argument. But I definitely expect a whole lot more destruction and at LEAST one major hurricane landfall next year.




It's not like you can even compare 2004 and 1933 to 05 anyway.



I mean come on people, 04 just barely got up to Otto. Looking over the count I see what...


2 Depressions

8 canes

7 Storms



This looks kind of ridiculously average from my point of view don't you agree?


I mean geez we went 15 storms deep when Ophelia was born. (on my birthday no less).


Look at 1933 anyway...


11 Tropical Storms

5 Minimal Canes

4 Major (none breaking 5 status)


And for 05...


2 Depressions...


10 Tropical Storms....


6 Minimal Hurricanes


7 Major Hurricanes.









Yeah I said SEVEN MAJOR HURRICANES. THREE CAT 5.








If that plus Vince plus the heat records from Wilma don't satisfy you then I don't know what will. I guess you guys won't be satisfied until we get a 200 MPH Cane and finally someone will admit something is going on.

well that "something" is what were debating, is that "something" caused by global warming? is it another factor? if it is global warming, what or who is causing it? as i said , 1933 may seem a long time ago, but in the grand scheme it is VERY recent compared to how long hurricanes have been here, so i dont think we have enough data to say one way or another that global warming(natural or human induced) is the cause of more and more intense hurricanes

[x-y-no]

well that "something" is what were debating, is that "something" caused by global warming? is it another factor? if it is global warming, what or who is causing it? as i said , 1933 may seem a long time ago, but in the grand scheme it is VERY recent compared to how long hurricanes have been here, so i dont think we have enough data to say one way or another that global warming(natural or human induced) is the cause of more and more intense hurricanes

Well, let me be real clear here, in case I wasn't before. I do not maintain that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the primary cause of this intense season, and certainly not of any particular storm event. I do maintain that there is good reason to think that the approximately .3 degree celsius increase in tropical SSTs which can be attributed to AGW has contributed somewhat to the intensity of this and other recent seasons. I find it more than a little baffling that anyone could dismiss that idea out of hand given the well-established connection between warm SSTs and tropical storm development and intensification.

[Ivanhater]

well that "something" is what were debating, is that "something" caused by global warming? is it another factor? if it is global warming, what or who is causing it? as i said , 1933 may seem a long time ago, but in the grand scheme it is VERY recent compared to how long hurricanes have been here, so i dont think we have enough data to say one way or another that global warming(natural or human induced) is the cause of more and more intense hurricanes

Well, let me be real clear here, in case I wasn't before. I do not maintain that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the primary cause of this intense season, and certainly not of any particular storm event. I do maintain that there is good reason to think that the approximately .3 degree celsius increase in tropical SSTs which can be attributed to AGW has contributed somewhat to the intensity of this and other recent seasons. I find it more than a little baffling that anyone could dismiss that idea out of hand given the well-established connection between warm SSTs and tropical storm development and intensification.

ok, first off, your coming off a little rude....im not dismissing anything....and im not attacking your point of view so i would appreciate it if you wouldnt attack mine, the problem is you do not have enough proof to justify that global warming is the cause of the increase in the number of hurricanes and intensity, if there was enough proof to justify your view, there wouldnt be a big debate about it all over the world.....i thought we were exchanging ideas in this thread and im learning in the process but instead you want to be rude

[cycloneye]

Ok let's continue the good discussions about the theme but let's not cross the line towards attacks.

[x-y-no]

ok, first off, your coming off a little rude....

I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude - that isn't my intent nor do I see what it is I've said to offend.

im not dismissing anything....and im not attacking your point of view so i would appreciate it if you wouldnt attack mine, the problem is you do not have enough proof to justify that global warming is the cause of the increase in the number of hurricanes and intensity, if there was enough proof to justify your view, there wouldnt be a big debate about it all over the world.....i thought we were exchanging ideas in this thread and im learning in the process but instead you want to be rude

I didn't attack your point of view. What I did was try to state as clearly as I could what the state of knowledge is at this point:

1) We know that we are at the peak of the mutidecadal cycle of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and that accounts for a large part of the intensity of recent Atlantic seasons including this one.

2) We also have strong evidence at this point that a moderate amount of increase in tropical SSTs (apprax. 0.3 degrees celsius) can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

3) There is a well understood connection between high SSTs in the tropics and the formation and intensification of tropical cyclones. Dr. Gray himself (whose skepticism on any AGW component to hurricane intensity is the original subject of this thread) uses SSTs as one component of his seasonal forecast methodology. The relationship is not a linear one, as there are many other factors involved in cyclogenesis, but there is a relationship.

Given this, I find it hard to understand how Dr. Gray can categorically state that there is no AGW contribution to the intensity of recent seasons. One can legitimately bring up issues of uncertainty in the historical data and suggest that this may have introduced errors in Dr. Emmanuel's and Dr, Webster's research, but uncertainty cuts both ways - there can be no reasonable way I can see to rule out such a contribution on the basis of the argument he puts forth.

In fact, given the fact that Dr. Gray himself agrees that there is a moderate warming signature throughout the tropical SSTs and he himself uses SSTs as one component of his forecasting methodology, I find his categorical denial very mystifying.

[Ivanhater]

ok, first off, your coming off a little rude....

I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude - that isn't my intent nor do I see what it is I've said to offend.

im not dismissing anything....and im not attacking your point of view so i would appreciate it if you wouldnt attack mine, the problem is you do not have enough proof to justify that global warming is the cause of the increase in the number of hurricanes and intensity, if there was enough proof to justify your view, there wouldnt be a big debate about it all over the world.....i thought we were exchanging ideas in this thread and im learning in the process but instead you want to be rude

I didn't attack your point of view. What I did was try to state as clearly as I could what the state of knowledge is at this point:

1) We know that we are at the peak of the mutidecadal cycle of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and that accounts for a large part of the intensity of recent Atlantic seasons including this one.

2) We also have strong evidence at this point that a moderate amount of increase in tropical SSTs (apprax. 0.3 degrees celsius) can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

3) There is a well understood connection between high SSTs in the tropics and the formation and intensification of tropical cyclones. Dr. Gray himself (whose skepticism on any AGW component to hurricane intensity is the original subject of this thread) uses SSTs as one component of his seasonal forecast methodology. The relationship is not a linear one, as there are many other factors involved in cyclogenesis, but there is a relationship.

Given this, I find it hard to understand how Dr. Gray can categorically state that there is no AGW contribution to the intensity of recent seasons. One can legitimately bring up issues of uncertainty in the historical data and suggest that this may have introduced errors in Dr. Emmanuel's and Dr, Webster's research, but uncertainty cuts both ways - there can be no reasonable way I can see to rule out such a contribution on the basis of the argument he puts forth.

In fact, given the fact that Dr. Gray himself agrees that there is a moderate warming signature throughout the tropical SSTs and he himself uses SSTs as one component of his forecasting methodology, I find his categorical denial very mystifying.

ok, if you were not trying to be rude were cool , and i agree that we cannot rule out anything, whether it be solely the natural cycle, solely global warming or if they are both contributing to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes, but if global warming is one of many factors, dont most researchers believe other global weather patterns such as la nina and others overshadow global warming as a factor?..so is global warming(if it is a factor) really that important compared to the big picture?,.....like i said i dont know the answer, just something im thinking about

[f5]

discussion is getting a little hot

[Anonymous]

It okay if the media wants to ask about global warming. But it just seems they want to hear the words from Max Mayfield that "HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS CREATING WORSE HURRICANES" ....and it ain't true. Sure, there may be some truth in global warming, but none says it's human induced.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

It okay if the media wants to ask about global warming. But it just seems they want to hear the words from Max Mayfield that "HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS CREATING WORSE HURRICANES" ....and it ain't true. Sure, there may be some truth in global warming, but none says it's human induced.

The one thing that could change all this is the fact that my cousin let
out one big bad methane burst prior to
the 2005 season = human induced global warming in my book... Sorry but I need a good laugh.

In actuality though I think human induced greenhouse gases = more
heat trapped = higher ssts = more co-2 in ocean = more co-2 yielded
from outgassing of co-2 in a hurricane = more co-2 back in the atmosphere again to continue the vicious cycle...

[Anonymous]

If we put every pollutant in the world into the atmosphere at once, we would survive.

[Recurve]

If we put every pollutant in the world into the atmosphere at once, we would survive.

?

Well, I know of one Union Carbide plant that pumped one pollutant into the atmosphere over Bhopal, India, and a lot of people died miserable deaths within minutes. So I have no idea what your point is. But then pollution and whether we'll "survive" isn't exactly the topic of this thread either.

[AussieMark]

Cyclone counts around Australia have been well down over the last few years. And Last season was well down.

The 2004/5 season was the fourth consecutive year with below-average Australian-basin tropical storm activity. Australian landfalling activity in 2004/5 was either below-average or above-average depending upon the measure used.

• The 2004/5 Australian-region tropical storm season featured 8 storms of which 3 made severe tropical cyclone strength (U.S. hurricane equivalent). These figures compare to 30-year climatology values of 10.7 and 5.8 respectively.

• A fourth consecutive inactive season. Only 6 years in the last 30 have seen less tropical storms. The period 2001/2 to 2004/5 has seen the lowest activity of any four-year period in the last 30 years. We believe this is due to the persistent warm anomaly in the ENSO Niño 4
region sea surface temperatures during this period.

[thunderchief]

there are active periods of major landfalls(check out the period around the Revolutionary war for massive death from many storms over a few years) and there are inactive periods. Some of this is due to natural variance and some do to climate cycles and the bottom line is that global warming, man-made or otherwise, is such a slow process that it cannot possibly be attributed to the past 2 record seasons.

[arcticfire]

This debate is pointless. People will keep arguing over it till it's so blindingly aparent they would look bad having the opposite opinion. The doc is a great fella , smart and has contribued lots. That does not make him the end all be all athority on GW or how GW would affect hurricains. Someoone want to point me to where he predicted an abnormal season this year before it started? As I recall his numbers were average.

I'm not using that to attack his credibility , what I'm pointing out is he does not know everything even in his own speciality of research nevermind parallel fields that relate to his only indirectly.

Also I wold point out , you should not on one hand say you can't draw judgements from 2 seasons , and then in the same breath say any sort of reliable cycle could be deserned from a woopin 100 years of reliable observation (and I use 100 loosly since it's actually less).

But we are already gonna lose the north pole , likly within this century maby even ice free in summers by 2050. I'm sure losing gigantic static year round ice and turning it into a breathing ocean will have no effect either right ? The point really is how many hurricains plow into NOLA over the next decade is not the issue. Truth be told the sea rise from melting glaciers in greenland pose far far greater threat to all the gulf states then any number of hurricains.

Keep an open mind , don't just mindlessly tout "cycle" theory which is scetchy at best in it's own right.