New Evidence Released, Global Warming Increasing Hurricanes

[caneman]

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.

LEts see where do we start on a post that clearly went off topic, is now delving into religion, or uh uhm, I guess lack their of with a blanket statement that simply states, "if you don't believe in GW you are a christian", "if you are a christian", "you are ignorant or lacking in knowledge". See the problem with your post yet? This doesn't warrant a debate. And there are plent of debate threads in Global Weather forum. Ayntime you here fire, we must do something now, you must believe in my way of thinking , there is no other way, and if you don't you'll pay or else statements. Look at history, this type of approach is cause for conern and quite honestly it is the Amercian way to rebel.

[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

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.

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your openess on this issue. I will try that approach as well. We need more scientist thinking the same way however. Come in with an open mind and give research its due time without screaming :Fire-You must act now or else. This deserve serious concern and consideration. No agendas and no political motives.

[Javlin]

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.


That sounds a bit of a stretch in numbers ie: how many barrels of oil would that be?how many tons of coal?what was the starting number of both quanities?what is the existing number now of both quanities.No one pro or con can claim to know these numbers in there right mind,research even today still occassionally finds new reserves.While I cannot argue the idea to find new ways of energy but there are other things in the economy that may require funds every bit as much.

[caneman]

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.


That sounds a bit of a stretch in numbers ie: how many barrels of oil would that be?how many tons of coal?what was the starting number of both quanities?what is the existing number now of both quanities.No one pro or con can claim to know these numbers in there right mind,research even today still occassionally finds new reserves.While I cannot argue the idea to find new ways of energy but there are other things in the economy that may require funds every bit as much.

I agree and to say it would be inexpensive initially is, at the minimum, a stretch.

[jimvb]

Modtech, I recently did a computation in which I imagined that every carbon atom in all the remaining oil, natural gas, and coal became a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (a way-out assumption). The result was a 12.4 degree F rise in air temperature. However, some of the carbon will remain in the ground, some of it will become part of carbon dioxide but will be absorbed by oceans and trees, if we don't chop them all down, and some will find its way into Aquafina bottles and cell phones. I figure that only a 3-4 degree F rise will happen. This will endanger atolls and some coastal areas, but would not cause big catastrophes. I feel the bigger problem is peak fossil fuels, with oil's peak in 2006, natural gas only a few years away, and coal in 2032.

[terstorm1012]

Peak Coal is nowhere near by. In Pennsylvania alone we have coal that will last through 2150, if extraction rates increased to the rate they were in the 1930s and 1940s. Coal's still king in PA even though they aren't extracting it at the rates done in the past (and Western coal is much, much cheaper.)

way off topic but just had to point that out.

[x-y-no]

Modtech, I recently did a computation in which I imagined that every carbon atom in all the remaining oil, natural gas, and coal became a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (a way-out assumption). The result was a 12.4 degree F rise in air temperature. However, some of the carbon will remain in the ground, some of it will become part of carbon dioxide but will be absorbed by oceans and trees, if we don't chop them all down, and some will find its way into Aquafina bottles and cell phones. I figure that only a 3-4 degree F rise will happen. This will endanger atolls and some coastal areas, but would not cause big catastrophes. I feel the bigger problem is peak fossil fuels, with oil's peak in 2006, natural gas only a few years away, and coal in 2032.

Care to share your work? That result is low even if one totally ignores water vapor feedback.

[Javlin]

Modtech, I recently did a computation in which I imagined that every carbon atom in all the remaining oil, natural gas, and coal became a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (a way-out assumption). The result was a 12.4 degree F rise in air temperature. However, some of the carbon will remain in the ground, some of it will become part of carbon dioxide but will be absorbed by oceans and trees, if we don't chop them all down, and some will find its way into Aquafina bottles and cell phones. I figure that only a 3-4 degree F rise will happen. This will endanger atolls and some coastal areas, but would not cause big catastrophes. I feel the bigger problem is peak fossil fuels, with oil's peak in 2006, natural gas only a few years away, and coal in 2032.

Care to share your work? That result is low even if one totally ignores water vapor feedback.

I thought that the poster was being facetious X-Y-No?

[Jim Hughes]

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.

Nobody should be labled a GW skeptic just because they say that the increased ATL activity for the past 10-12 might be related to something other than GW. This is just as reckless as denying that any kind of warmth is going on.

[x-y-no]

Nobody should be labled a GW skeptic just because they say that the increased ATL activity for the past 10-12 might be related to something other than GW. This is just as reckless as denying that any kind of warmth is going on.

Agreed.

[Derek Ortt]

the studies have not yet been published that I have cited... but they were presented in a recent seminar at HRD (by a professor at RSMAS)

[Valkhorn]

the studies have not yet been published that I have cited... but they were presented in a recent seminar at HRD (by a professor at RSMAS)

Post them when they've been subjected to enough peer-review then.

Peak Coal is nowhere near by. In Pennsylvania alone we have coal that will last through 2150, if extraction rates increased to the rate they were in the 1930s and 1940s. Coal's still king in PA even though they aren't extracting it at the rates done in the past (and Western coal is much, much cheaper.)

No. Peak oil is not when it runs out. Peak oil is when the costs start to outweigh the selling price of oil. We'll NEVER be able to get all of the oil out because at some point in the very near future it will be cheaper to find alternate forms of fuel. Current gas prices and oil prices are a prime example. Everything runs on oil. Oil will run out as far as viability goes.

Even more so coal and oil are not the most efficient forms of fuel and they pollute heavily.

That sounds a bit of a stretch in numbers ie: how many barrels of oil would that be?how many tons of coal?what was the starting number of both quanities?what is the existing number now of both quanities.No one pro or con can claim to know these numbers in there right mind,research even today still occassionally finds new reserves.While I cannot argue the idea to find new ways of energy but there are other things in the economy that may require funds every bit as much.

That isn't a stretch at all. If you've ever taken a geology course you'd know how long the carboniferous era was and you'd know how much time it took to get all of that biomass into the ground. Then you'd realize how much energy is released and compare it to time frames and the answer is pretty clear. Why else do you think we have such a huge spike in CO2 levels lately? Magic?

What else would require more attention in our economy than preparing for the future? It's really silly to keep the blinders on and pretend we won't know what will happen or what our consequences for ignoring problems will be. We know we need alternate sources of energy. We know things like wind and solar have the potential (albeit with investments initially) to be FAR greater than coal or oil could ever supply and cleaner. We could also invest in Nuclear power plants too, but are we? No.

Big Oil has lobbied itself firmly into congress and effects policy making. Big Oil denies global warming because they stand to lose money if it is real and paid attention too. Why do you think they fund studies against it? Why do you think they've posted propaganda advertisements saying increased CO2 is a good thing and pollution is ok?

Oil companies stand to make much higher profits as the supply of oil dwindles. Just as they are doing right now. Washington is not in the best interest of the American people and your favorite congressman usually goes to the highest bidder.

Politics aside, the facts still point to global warming - the facts show the Earth is getting warmer. And it is fairly obvious humans have some impact on it - why wouldn't we?

In fact I'd like anyone here to tell me why people wouldn't have an effect on the weather or climate.

[x-y-no]

Let's please not take this into the political realm of who is lobbying, etc.

[terstorm1012]

the studies have not yet been published that I have cited... but they were presented in a recent seminar at HRD (by a professor at RSMAS)

Thank you. Please let us know when they're published, I really am interested in reading them.

[Jim Hughes]

the studies have not yet been published that I have cited... but they were presented in a recent seminar at HRD (by a professor at RSMAS)

Post them when they've been subjected to enough peer-review then.

Peak Coal is nowhere near by. In Pennsylvania alone we have coal that will last through 2150, if extraction rates increased to the rate they were in the 1930s and 1940s. Coal's still king in PA even though they aren't extracting it at the rates done in the past (and Western coal is much, much cheaper.)

No. Peak oil is not when it runs out. Peak oil is when the costs start to outweigh the selling price of oil. We'll NEVER be able to get all of the oil out because at some point in the very near future it will be cheaper to find alternate forms of fuel. Current gas prices and oil prices are a prime example. Everything runs on oil. Oil will run out as far as viability goes.

Even more so coal and oil are not the most efficient forms of fuel and they pollute heavily.

That sounds a bit of a stretch in numbers ie: how many barrels of oil would that be?how many tons of coal?what was the starting number of both quanities?what is the existing number now of both quanities.No one pro or con can claim to know these numbers in there right mind,research even today still occassionally finds new reserves.While I cannot argue the idea to find new ways of energy but there are other things in the economy that may require funds every bit as much.

That isn't a stretch at all. If you've ever taken a geology course you'd know how long the carboniferous era was and you'd know how much time it took to get all of that biomass into the ground. Then you'd realize how much energy is released and compare it to time frames and the answer is pretty clear. Why else do you think we have such a huge spike in CO2 levels lately? Magic?

What else would require more attention in our economy than preparing for the future? It's really silly to keep the blinders on and pretend we won't know what will happen or what our consequences for ignoring problems will be. We know we need alternate sources of energy. We know things like wind and solar have the potential (albeit with investments initially) to be FAR greater than coal or oil could ever supply and cleaner. We could also invest in Nuclear power plants too, but are we? No.

Big Oil has lobbied itself firmly into congress and effects policy making. Big Oil denies global warming because they stand to lose money if it is real and paid attention too. Why do you think they fund studies against it? Why do you think they've posted propaganda advertisements saying increased CO2 is a good thing and pollution is ok?

Oil companies stand to make much higher profits as the supply of oil dwindles. Just as they are doing right now. Washington is not in the best interest of the American people and your favorite congressman usually goes to the highest bidder.

Politics aside, the facts still point to global warming - the facts show the Earth is getting warmer. And it is fairly obvious humans have some impact on it - why wouldn't we?

In fact I'd like anyone here to tell me why people wouldn't have an effect on the weather or climate.

You have gone down so many different avenues that it's hard to get a feel of what you think in regards to GW forcing stronger hurricane seasons

[HenkL]

The Holland/Webster paper as a PDF-file can be found here.

[RL3AO]

Now this is a good read. It explains why the 1933 season and seasons before the 1960's were likely more active.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

[Jim Hughes]

Now this is a good read. It explains why the 1933 season and seasons before the 1960's were likely more active.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

I think the science community needs to consider how the stratopshere-troposphere teleconnect and it's pupose.

What happend right before 1995? And what was going on in the stratosphere leading up to this sharp ATL increase? Especially after 02'.

And what type of changes have taken place since this heightened activty level.

[Jim Hughes]

Now this is a good read. It explains why the 1933 season and seasons before the 1960's were likely more active.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

I think the science community needs to consider how the stratopshere-troposphere teleconnect and it's pupose.

What happend right before 1995? And what was going on in the stratosphere leading up to this sharp ATL increase? Especially after 02'.

And what type of changes have taken place since this heightened activty level.

[Valkhorn]

You have gone down so many different avenues that it's hard to get a feel of what you think in regards to GW forcing stronger hurricane seasons

No it isn't. I've posted facts supporting global warming. Global warming is naturally going to cause stronger systems due to more heat content in the oceans.

It's not that complicated to figure out.

Jim Hughes post:

You realize you're only posting selected anomalies for only 20 years for selected latitudes right? Plus that is at 50hPa - which I believe is 35,000 feet in altitude. That's not what goes on on the ground.

Here's one for 400,000 years:



Plus what is with the sea of denial so that we can rationalize not trying to at least doing something about being greener and making this world a better place to live in with better, cheaper, cleaner energy alternatives?