Hurricane scientists are divided.....

[Downdraft]

Okay a new twist on things and unfortunately it's political in the sense that politicians (regardless of party) control it. We can debate forever in the sterile rooms of a laboratory or the hallowed halls of academia whether GW is related to hurricane frequency and strength but for now we don't have an answer. What we do have an answer to is that we are in one of those periods of more storms and it would seem more intense storms. That being said we haven't checked the runaway growth of development along our coasts nor have we (in most cases) tightened the construction specs on what we build there. A barrel of Gulf crude equates to a full tank for an SUV yet 25% or more of our crude oil production lies vulnerable to storms. A fact, we have all become painfully aware of at the gas pump. We have no rational energy policy, we have no rational growth plan, we have no rational disaster response plan and please don't spout NIMS or the NRP to me we saw how well they worked in New Orleans. Speaking of the Big Easy is the city any more prepared now than it was the day before Katrina? Are the levees any stronger? City, State, Country or World it's politics as usual and watching so called "experts" stretch, twist or ignore the facts to make their own case. The only data I see is 3 million homes with 100 windows facing an Atlantic Ocean 25 yards across the beach. Since we've proved we can't live with nature is it any surprise that nature has proved it can live without us?

[x-y-no]

I think Klotzbach proved that Webster's work was bogus. If global ocean temperatures have increased 0.2 to 0.4 deg C during the last 20 years, then why hasn't there been an increase in CAT 4 or 5s? Did global warming suddenly turn itself off the last 20 years? Or that storm intensity responded to the warming prior to the mid-1980s but since that time it doesn't? That seems to be a pretty large logic trap for global warming/intensity proponents.

The shorter the timeframe you choose, the more likely it is that noise will overwhelm the signal. So then the question becomes is 20 years an adequate timeframe to expect a signal to reliably emerge from the noise? I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't think anyone does. That's why my interpretation of this issue is the same as that of Aslkahuna above - the answer is unknown at this point. Klotzbach's result certainly argues for no (or at least weak) correlation, whilst Webster's result argues for a strong one.

As I said, I think we need more data, unfortunately.

On the AMO, the physical phenomenon is the long-term cyclic warming and cooling of a large pool of water in the North Atlantic ocean that occurs every 20 to 50 years. There are temperature records that document this oscillating temperature since the late-1800s. There also exist proxy data from tree ring analysis in the southeast US that dates back several centuries. Lastly, isotope data from Greenland chronicles this periodic warming and cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean back some 12,000 years.

It is true that the origins or the physical processes that govern the AMO are not well understood - but, this doesn't make the phenomenon invalid.

Hmmm ... and are we sure these data sets don't also suffer from problems? We're willing to dismiss all tropical storm records prior to 1986 on the basis that this data is unreliable ... how reliable are the results indicating the existence of the AMO?

Current theory is that deep ocean currents (i.e. the Atlantic thermohaline Circulation) transport higher salinity water from the tropical Atlantic to the Northern Atlantic ocean. The speed of this circulation dictates whether the water warms or cools (speeds up warmer, slows down cooler). Dave Enfield and others (2001) have an excellent paper on the AMO and its influence on climate for peninsula Florida and the continental US.

Now that's the argument that Bill Gray used to make in the past. I'll agree it makes some qualitative sense. But interestingly, he now argues exactly the opposite, that the warm phase of the AMO is associated with a slowing of the THC (see, for example, his presentation at the recent AMS symposium on hurricanes, or his presentation at the Governor's Conference). He has not explained this reversal, but I'm guessing it has to do with the recent observational result that the THC appears to have slowed.


I'll look for that paper by Enfield et. al.


EDIT:

Enfield et. al. 2001

also:

ST Gray et al 2004

[x-y-no]

One question which occurs immediately on reading the abstract of the Enfield paper is: Why would one expect a large impact on Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity from an AMO signal with a 0.4 degree range but not expect a large impact from the approximately 0.5 degree warming already attributable to AGW?

[jasons2k]

I've read several writeups on the movie, but this sums up the flaws very well:

"First, he’s got a problem with “Confirmation Bias”, the tendency to seek out evidence that is consistent with an hypothesis, instead of seeking out evidence that could disprove it. Al’s hypothesis is that global warming is occurring and man is the cause. All Al does is to present evidence that it’s occurring. He doesn’t show what is causing it, but he comes to the conclusion that the cause wears pants. He doesn’t even try to find evidence that refutes this conclusion.

His logic is further skewed because of the basic error called “correlation to cause,” which occurs when a correlation is observed, and a causal relationship assumed. Al says global warming is occurring and man is doing lots of things at the same time, so man’s actions must be causing the global warming. But he gives us no PROOF that man’s actions are the cause of his alleged global warming.

But even worse is his “Causal Oversimplification,” which occurs when there are many causes to a phenomenon, but the argument implies or assumes that only one is important. It is naïve to assume that if global warming is occurring, there is only one cause. The earth has been cooling and heating throughout its 4 billion year existence. Even assuming that Al’s first premise is correct, that global warming is occurring, he has completely struck out in trying to prove that the sole, primary cause is human activity."

http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/An_Incon ... _Truth.htm

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

That being said we haven't checked the runaway growth of development along our coasts nor have we (in most cases) tightened the construction specs on what we build there.

That is a very good point.

[x-y-no]

I've read several writeups on the movie, but this sums up the flaws very well:

"First, he’s got a problem with “Confirmation Bias”, the tendency to seek out evidence that is consistent with an hypothesis, instead of seeking out evidence that could disprove it. Al’s hypothesis is that global warming is occurring and man is the cause. All Al does is to present evidence that it’s occurring. He doesn’t show what is causing it, but he comes to the conclusion that the cause wears pants. He doesn’t even try to find evidence that refutes this conclusion.

Can you say "projection"?

Given that this guy glibly repeats lies like "he once claimed he invented the internet among lots of other things we take for granted today", I think he might just be coming at this issue with a bias of his own.


I haven't seen Gore's movie, so I don't know what flaws there may be in the presentation. But to conclude that Gore's approach is hopelessly biased because he asserts what is very well established - that human production of GHGs is causing significant global warming - is false reasoning.

[jasons2k]

I have not seen the movie yet myself, but the cited summary is a recurring theme in other critiques - at least critiques that actually analyze what is presented.

[x-y-no]

I have not seen the movie yet myself, but the cited summary is a recurring theme in other critiques - at least critiques that actually analyze what is presented.

Here's another review which adresses some of the science, if you're willing to take a look.

[jasons2k]

I have not seen the movie yet myself, but the cited summary is a recurring theme in other critiques - at least critiques that actually analyze what is presented.

Here's another review which adresses some of the science, if you're willing to take a look.

Thanks for the link! I think that's a good writeup as well. I can't say whether or not I agree or disagree with the anlaysis since I haven't seen the movie. Here is something that really lunged at me though:

"The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change."

I'm not sure that's the case, especially now. This "main point", or argument, makes an assumption that if we can fix it, then we must be the cause.

There is only so much we can do (and have already done) if the rest of the world (especially the old Eastern Bloc countries, developing countries like China, etc.) isn't willing to go along. After all, we can only clean-up our own mess. Apparently in the film, Gore makes the point that China is a 'model of conservation and alternative fuel sources'. That cannot be based on reality, at least from what I have read. China is building coal-fired plants faster than they can supply them. They now consume 1/3 of the world's supply, easily #1 in the world. Residents of Beijing regularly wear masks from all the soot and auto exhaust. Maybe they should translate the movie and show it there.

[x-y-no]

I'm not sure that's the case, especially now. This "main point", or argument, makes an assumption that if we can fix it, then we must be the cause.

I don't think that neccesarily follows. But IIRC, the US consumes something like 25% of the world total consumption of fossil fuels. So certainly we're a significant part of the cause.

There is only so much we can do (and have already done) if the rest of the world (especially the old Eastern Bloc countries, developing countries like China, etc.) isn't willing to go along. After all, we can only clean-up our own mess. Apparently in the film, Gore makes the point that China is a 'model of conservation and alternative fuel sources'. That cannot be based on reality, at least from what I have read. China is building coal-fired plants faster than they can supply them. They now consume 1/3 of the world's supply, easily #1 in the world. Residents of Beijing regularly wear masks from all the soot and auto exhaust. Maybe they should translate the movie and show it there.

I think there's a lot more that we could do - and a big part of that would be going full bore into the business of selling green technologies to the developing world. You're right about China being a rapidly growing problem, but they're quite aware of that themselves and they really are doing quite a bit to mitigate it. Unfortunately, they haven't been capable of implementing mitigation strategies on a scale to compensate for their phenomenal growth.

We shouldn't assume that they're resistant to dealing with the issue until we've actually seen them turn down beneficial technologies. They might surprise us, and in might actually profit us directly, not merely indirectly through reduction of the AGW impact.

[jasons2k]

Yes, and as I'm sure you are aware, fossil-fuel consumption isn't limited to coal-fired plants and Ford Excursions. The numbers will always be skewed in the due to manufacturing plants and the petrochemical industry. Unless someone invents a new chemical compound for Saran Wrap and the millions of other products we use every day, that's not going to change.

This is another topic entirely but I'm much more concerned with the carcinogens we keep pumping into the air as a result.

[x-y-no]

Yes, and as I'm sure you are aware, fossil-fuel consumption isn't limited to coal-fired plants and Ford Excursions. The numbers will always be skewed in the due to manufacturing plants and the petrochemical industry. Unless someone invents a new chemical compound for Saran Wrap and the millions of other products we use every day, that's not going to change.

This is another topic entirely but I'm much more concerned with the carcinogens we keep pumping into the air as a result.

If the fossil carbon winds up locked up in plastics then it's not contributing to the global warming problem, so I'm not sure why you bring up the pertochemical industry.

[jasons2k]

That was the point, it's not contributing.

When you cite this "But IIRC, the US consumes something like 25% of the world total consumption of fossil fuels. So certainly we're a significant part of the cause."

The point is that not all of that 25% has anything to do with "greenhouse" emmissions. It has nothing to do with the cause.

[x-y-no]

That was the point, it's not contributing.

When you cite this "But IIRC, the US consumes something like 25% of the world total consumption of fossil fuels. So certainly we're a significant part of the cause."

The point is that not all of that 25% has anything to do with "greenhouse" emmissions. It has nothing to do with the cause.

I still don't see how this detracts from the notion that we can contribute significantly to the solution.

Here's a site I found with CO2 emissions figures from 2002. Looks like at that time the US was contributing about 24.5% of the CO2 emissions worldwide - pretty close to the 25% I named above.