New Evidence Released, Global Warming Increasing Hurricanes

[gatorcane]

Hot of the press folks:

Post away on this controversial topical

Exerpt:

In all, the study concludes that warmer seas and altered wind patterns are increasing the number of tropical systems. That differs from previous studies, which assert that global warming is boosting the strength of hurricanes, but not necessarily the frequency.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-729warm ... b01_layout

[RL3AO]

I saw that earlier. Kinda embarrassing. It couldn't possibly be because we have satellites now could it? Worthless report.

[HURAKAN]

We need more years of accurate data to get to that conclusion.

[Jam151]

They call that evidence?

[Cyclone1]

I saw that earlier. Kinda embarrassing. It couldn't possibly be because we have satellites now could it? Worthless report.

LOL That is a brilliant point!

[x-y-no]

I'm unclear on how they've overcome Chris Landsea's issue regarding reliability of old statistics. (Quite possibly they haven't)

When I get a chance, I'll read the paper and post here about it.

[x-y-no]

Here is the Royal Society site.

The article says the paper should be available there tomorrow.

[terstorm1012]

PMed you X-Y-No about this paper, if you get the chance.

[x-y-no]

While we're waiting for the paper, there's this slide presentation (pdf document) available.

[Valkhorn]

You're right, CO2 levels and Temperature don't correlate at all, and I'm sure that huge spike at the end isn't caused by humans.

I look at it this way - the Earth is getting warmer. That is a fact. Whether it is long term or short term it is definitely getting warmer. Are humans contributing? Well ask yourself, is the Pope Catholic?

We know humans effect weather. Pollution causes acidity in rain. Cities cause warmer heat islands at night. In addition, we've been burning up fossil fuels over the last 100 years that have taken up to 100,000,000 years to form. All of that energy over 100 million years released in 100 years and people think that wouldn't have any effect whatsoever?

Plus, no matter what, what is so wrong with trying to find cheaper more renewable forms of energy? What is so bad about curtailing pollution and making more efficient, greener factories? Nobody wants to live in a dirty, smelly world.

On top of that, you can also think of it this way. Either we take action or we don't. Let's say we take action - worse case scenario is we end up with a greener world and we spent a little money that we didn't need to. If we don't take action, the worse case scenario is that we're up **** creek without a paddle.

I think that even if you have doubt about the data, it's pretty obvious what path we must choose.

[Jim Hughes]

You're right, CO2 levels and Temperature don't correlate at all, and I'm sure that huge spike at the end isn't caused by humans.

I look at it this way - the Earth is getting warmer. That is a fact. Whether it is long term or short term it is definitely getting warmer. Are humans contributing? Well ask yourself, is the Pope Catholic?

We know humans effect weather. Pollution causes acidity in rain. Cities cause warmer heat islands at night. In addition, we've been burning up fossil fuels over the last 100 years that have taken up to 100,000,000 years to form. All of that energy over 100 million years released in 100 years and people think that wouldn't have any effect whatsoever?

Plus, no matter what, what is so wrong with trying to find cheaper more renewable forms of energy? What is so bad about curtailing pollution and making more efficient, greener factories? Nobody wants to live in a dirty, smelly world.

On top of that, you can also think of it this way. Either we take action or we don't. Let's say we take action - worse case scenario is we end up with a greener world and we spent a little money that we didn't need to. If we don't take action, the worse case scenario is that we're up **** creek without a paddle.

I think that even if you have doubt about the data, it's pretty obvious what path we must choose.

But the topic was about GW and hurricanes. I wish I could add some attachments easily but my forum's settings does not seem to allow this. I would post some images about the stratosphere's role in all of this. We need to consider the possible purpose of this ATL increase and what it's role is here in regards to replemishing polar ozone by way of an intensifying Brewer Dobson Circulation.

[Bane]

global warming....

[jimvb]

We need to find out what has been happening since the 1960s, the time when weather satellites were first able to track hurricanes. Until this time it was conceivable that a hurricane out at sea, especially a fish hurricane, could escape human detection; it's not possible now with weather satellites constantly looking.

To me the evidence suggests that there is warming, that humans cause it, but that before it gets too far, we will run out of fossil fuels.

[Derek Ortt]

I've just seen a modeling study (presented with higher SST), which proves the exact opposite.

As SST increases, a TC is more sensitive to shear according to the study I have seen

[jimvb]

Apparently there was absolutely no shear with Katrina.

[terstorm1012]

I've just seen a modeling study (presented with higher SST), which proves the exact opposite.

As SST increases, a TC is more sensitive to shear according to the study I have seen

Are these studies published? I'd be interested in reading them for my own education.

[caneman]

Well I know that Royal Society as been sourced here by at least one member as being a credible source for what may or may not be going on with GW. However, when you read this link, I think it becomes pretty clear that they have a conclusion in place and have tried to formulate facts to support it.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... &catnum=-1

This is a direct quote from the NHC.

"An official at the National Hurricane Center called the research "sloppy science" and said technological improvements in observing storms accounted for the increase. "

And I would add that we are now also classifying Sub-Trop systems as well. Not that any of this matters because just as Hurricanes go thru cycles of active to inactive, I as many others also belief, so does world wide weather.

[Valkhorn]

But the topic was about GW and hurricanes. I wish I could add some attachments easily but my forum's settings does not seem to allow this. I would post some images about the stratosphere's role in all of this. We need to consider the possible purpose of this ATL increase and what it's role is here in regards to replemishing polar ozone by way of an intensifying Brewer Dobson Circulation.

And my post was about global warming (and it was very conveniently ignored by those who deny global warming).

I do find one consistency - many people with very little science education not only deny Evolution, but deny Global Warming. I used to be skeptical about gw, but not only did the facts convince me, but the fact that we can't just sit around and use resources like we are and emit pollution like we are without consequences.

Of course that may be over some people's heads, but like I said earlier, either we do something and at the very worse lose a little money, or we do nothing and at the very worse end up in deep doo doo. Why is that such a difficult concept?

And I would add that we are now also classifying Sub-Trop systems as well. Not that any of this matters because just as Hurricanes go thru cycles of active to inactive, I as many others also belief, so does world wide weather.

Ah, but humans have an impact. To say that we don't is ludicrous. We have gone through, like I said in my first post in this thread, 100,000,000 years of natural energy deposits in 100 years. Surely, all that CO2 release wouldn't have an impact.

[x-y-no]

We need to find out what has been happening since the 1960s, the time when weather satellites were first able to track hurricanes. Until this time it was conceivable that a hurricane out at sea, especially a fish hurricane, could escape human detection; it's not possible now with weather satellites constantly looking.

Yes, that's Chris Landsea's objection and I think there's validity to it (how much I don't know.) Holland and Webster do make a significant effort to correct for this, but it's pretty tough for me to judge how accurate that correction may be.

To me the evidence suggests that there is warming, that humans cause it, but that before it gets too far, we will run out of fossil fuels.

Now that definitely won't happen. There's hundreds of years worth of easily recoverable coal in the US alone and China has a similar supply. We'll be at a critical level of warming long before we've made a serious dent in that supply.

[x-y-no]

Well I know that Royal Society as been sourced here by at least one member as being a credible source for what may or may not be going on with GW. However, when you read this link, I think it becomes pretty clear that they have a conclusion in place and have tried to formulate facts to support it.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... &catnum=-1

Clear as mud.

This is a direct quote from the NHC.

"An official at the National Hurricane Center called the research "sloppy science" and said technological improvements in observing storms accounted for the increase. "

Actually, a direct quote from Chris Landsea (NHC takes no official position on global warming / hurricane frequency issues as far as I'm aware) but that doesn't detract from the issue. Landsea is (to my mind) the most credible of the critics of this hypothesis and by no means are his objections easily dismissed.

And I would add that we are now also classifying Sub-Trop systems as well. Not that any of this matters because just as Hurricanes go thru cycles of active to inactive, I as many others also belief, so does world wide weather.

Yeah, that issue of what gets classified definitely concerns me too. I do think there's a trend to classifying systems that never would have been classified in the past and that would further bias the data. It's a very thorny problem, I agree - I'm not at all clear on how one can accurately compensate for all this. As I pointed out, Holland and Webster do attempt to do this, but I can't judge how accurate their adjustments are.