New Evidence Released, Global Warming Increasing Hurricanes

[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

And why is it you haven't gone after the slew of posts here that have nothing to say other than 'al gore bad' and 'global warming is a lie' when they had nothing to back up their claim?

[Jim Hughes]

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?

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?

Relax. I was merely stating what you were doing. Going into oil and coal etc..and I am all for cleaning up the earth but that is not the point here. Is it?

We're supposed to be talking about what's possibly causing what.

So now your talking about 400,000 years. Do you have storm data for this?

As far as the stratosphere data and twenty years..It goes back somewhat further. Almost 60 really.

But the somewhat obvious recent trends correlate in tandem. (I know correlation does not mean cause.) So why would we need to go back another 100 years if you consider how all of this possibly teleconnects?

I use to post here a good deal back in 05' and I wrote a discussion up

"Stratosphere,Ozone, and how this effects the AMO Cycle"

It's here. It's very long but you might want to look through it when you get the time.

viewtopic.php?t=78570

Now I sincerely wish that I could post some edited graphs because this would become a much better discussion but I can not for some reason. Maybe someone can inform me why this newer system does not seem to allow me to do this. ..But I am a computer dunce.

A quick google search for , AMO and Tropical Activity Levels, will bring up a minor discussion from another place that shows an edited 30 hPa stratosphere chart for the month of March. (It comes up first at google)

This chart shows different things like the temperature linear trend of the 30 hPa and how this lines up with the AMO increase.

If you are familiar with the stratosphere and how it operates than you should know that all of this is interrelated with stratospheric trends involving Stratospheric subject matters like CW's (Candian Warmings) MMW (Major Midwinter warmings) and FW's (Final warmings)

All of these subjects are interrelated to oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections in both the Pacifc and Atlantic ocean. Many research articles have been written about the stratosphere's relationship with the AO/NAO anomaly trends and we all know how the NAO has a relationship with the ATL SST's. Or at least everyone should know this. So this is basically also the AMO trends we are talking about here.

So connecting the dots between the increased activity level and the behavorial changes in the polar-tropical stratosphere is not a stretch by any means.

Here's and easy question? Do you believe that the earth's climate system has built in balances to correct itself when things go out of tilt? If you do then you should consider what has been happening during this increased activity level.

Please consider things like the BDC (Brewer Dobson Circulation) and what role it has been playing here.

I look forward to hearing back from you. I have some things to do so I might not be able to get back to you until later this evening.

[Jim Hughes]

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

And why is it you haven't gone after the slew of posts here that have nothing to say other than 'al gore bad' and 'global warming is a lie' when they had nothing to back up their claim?

I am sorry but I just started to post around here again during the past few days. Let me be clear though. I would never dispute the warming that is going on. Nor whether or not we are contributing. The unanswered question is how much is our fault though?

[Valkhorn]

I am sorry but I just started to post around here again during the past few days. Let me be clear though. I would never dispute the warming that is going on. Nor whether or not we are contributing. The unanswered question is how much is our fault though?

I think we can agree on that

Thanks for clearing that up. As for using 400,000 years of data, really things stem off from the average temperature. Then again you also have to realize geography was different 400,000 years ago as well.

[Steve]

Some of you may recall that I'm a fence-sitter on Global Warming in regards to human causation.

Some people have blamed the sun and sun cycles quite recently. Some have said it was a matter of measurements. Apparently Kenny Emmanuel at MIT disagrees with the measurement standard, and a "British and Swiss" study show that the sun would have had the opposite effect than what corporate science has been promoting.

It's like this - I wouldn't personally trust Christopher Landsea on this issue. He's a protege' of Dr. William Gray who clearly has an agenda when it comes to global warming. No one (and I mean NO ONE) is that stubborn (as Dr. Gray) without some agenda. He's clearly got one be it political, funding, or what have you. And in that regard, I don't think Landsea is credible. If they would simply provide alternative points of view instead of crankiness with the way they addressed their points, they'd probably come off as a bit more credible. But for now, their views on Global Warming are not credible to me based on the manner in which they espouse them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07 ... index.html



Steve

[Jim Hughes]

This first edited graph should give you an idea of what I am trying to point out. This is a 30 hPa March temperature graph for the North Pole since 1956. The red and black lines are the linear trends and the teal is the average.

The positive and negative AMO trends go along with the timing of when the linear trends go above or below the average, or teal line. The hurricane activity level became much less intense when the red line moved above the average around 1972 and the activity level stayed low (Negative AMO) while the linear average stayed above it.

The activity level started to increase (positive AMO) when the black linear line fell below the overall average around the 93-94 time frame.

I have squared off the area with yellow lines of when the activty level should be lower in case anyone is confused. The areas outside the box should lean toward increased hurricane activity. But one must also consider things like the ENSO, volcanic eruptions etc..




I have inverted this same graph and turned it around so that the ACE peak numbers are on top along with the extreme cold readings. I did not have the hard data for ACE but this is an estimate of the ACE index readings for each particular year in the second graph. They are the purple squares. The value of the ACE index data is on the right. The teal line is 100 and the Yellow line is 200. Each other line increases at 15 digits. Once again you can see how the most intense (130 and up) years stayed away from center and only 1980 went against the grain. You also have to consider what has happened since 2000 also. The linear trend would most likely still be above the overall average.

[img][/img]

Edit: I am not to sure why the images are so small. I must be doing something wrong with imageshack.

[btangy]

I think your characterization of Chris Landsea as having a political or funding agenda is a very erroneous assessment. Given his experience with the hurricane reanalysis project, Chris feels he can speak about data quality issues with the dataset he is developing. I don't see anything suspicious with that. He's argued his points and provided counter arguments to others' theories well. It doesn't mean he's right or wrong. That's science... there's no agenda to it and conflicting points of view are not anything new, though the media seems to love it since it's a high ratings topic.

Bill Gray is a different story, but I already addressed my views about his recent editorial in the WSJ in a different thread.

[Jim Hughes]

I think your characterization of Chris Landsea as having a political or funding agenda is a very erroneous assessment. Given his experience with the hurricane reanalysis project, Chris feels he can speak about data quality issues with the dataset he is developing. I don't see anything suspicious with that. He's argued his points and provided counter arguments to others' theories well. It doesn't mean he's right or wrong. That's science... there's no agenda to it and conflicting points of view are not anything new, though the media seems to love it since it's a high ratings topic.

Bill Gray is a different story, but I already addressed my views about his recent editorial in the WSJ in a different thread.

I think the term agenda gets a bad rap some times. We all have agendas in life and I think that this is fair as long as they are legitimate goals. I research possible space weather / stratospheric climate relationships whenever I get the chance. Now I do this because these fields are clearly underfunded , and fairly misunderstood, by a good deal of the science community. So why should anybody be labled by agendas, left or right, when they are trying get to the bottom of so many unaswered questions?

[caneman]

Some of you may recall that I'm a fence-sitter on Global Warming in regards to human causation.

Some people have blamed the sun and sun cycles quite recently. Some have said it was a matter of measurements. Apparently Kenny Emmanuel at MIT disagrees with the measurement standard, and a "British and Swiss" study show that the sun would have had the opposite effect than what corporate science has been promoting.

It's like this - I wouldn't personally trust Christopher Landsea on this issue. He's a protege' of Dr. William Gray who clearly has an agenda when it comes to global warming. No one (and I mean NO ONE) is that stubborn (as Dr. Gray) without some agenda. He's clearly got one be it political, funding, or what have you. And in that regard, I don't think Landsea is credible. If they would simply provide alternative points of view instead of crankiness with the way they addressed their points, they'd probably come off as a bit more credible. But for now, their views on Global Warming are not credible to me based on the manner in which they espouse them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07 ... index.html



Steve

To be fair each side has an agenda. And there is plenty of crankiness and forcefulness coming from the other side. Until both parties can put this is aside it will be hard to come up with an unbiased purely scientific reasoning.

[Jim Hughes]

I have successfully uploaded a larger image to get across my point from my original reply post two days ago. I will be posting a more detailed discussion, time lines etc...sometime tomorrow or Saturday. This discussion will also be about the PDO relationship and how these March 30 hPa temperature trends are also interrelated to it's regime shift. (Besides the AMO regime shift)

Just a quick point. senorpepr was nice enough to give me a link to hard ACE data yesterday. So I have the yearly hard data. The boxed in area is where the AMO is to be negative, weaker ATL activity and the areas on the outside are where the AMO is to be positive , stronger ATL activty.

The ACE readings for years on the outside of the box exceed the years within the box by 85%. I do not think that this is meaningless.

[la wave]

There is an excellent article in the July issue of Scientific American about GW and stronger hurricanes. I would recommend this fair and balanced article to anyone.