Global Warming and Hurricanes

[Viper]

This is a continuation of a debate in the Rita thread.

It is well documented that we were warmer in the early 20th century than we are now.

It is also well documented that we are still coming off of an ice age, hence the heating.

If anyone agrees with the Butterfly Effect than we can just blame African butterflies for being more active than normal.

As a scientist, I'm going to say what real scientists say when situations like this come up.

I don't know.

Evidence is so easily skewed one way or the other. If you want me to, I can show how each of those charts posted in the other thread can have fully biased data. It works both ways though. Counter arguments can just as easily have biased data.

Someone made a great point in the other thread. If we can barely predict the weather next week, who are we to say what next year shall be like?

[Snowguy716]

I recommend Michael Crichton's new book, State Of Fear, which debunks the global warming hysteria:  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This book has been largely debunked by scientists. In this book, Michael Chrichton uses data that includes end point bias (the data only covers time periods in which a small cooling trend took place) and then covers it by saying the data was incomplete. Besides, it's a science FICTION book written by someone who knows much about playing on emotions and with words and very little about science.

By the way, scientists were convinced about climate change in 1975 too:  http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Yes, global cooling was coming and we were all going to starve.  This was just 30 years ago.  Does this provide any doubt to some of you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, a few scientists thought in the early 1970s that the world had begun to cool. This story was picked up by Time Magazine and the rest is history. In reality, the greenhouse effect was proposed in the late 1800s and has been gaining ground since the 1920s. By 1981, many scientists were convinced that the world had begun an irreversible warming trend. The fact that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on record have occured since 1995 says something to me. It also says something to me that record arctic sea ice minimums were set in 1998, 2001, 2004, and yet again in 2005.

MR-2:  I think the short answer is nobody knows.  I suspect it is naturally occurring fluctuations in the temperature unrelated to man.  A .8 degree increase over 150 years doesnt exactly keep me up at night.  I also think people are very conceited to imagine that our behavior is changing the climate.  There just isnt enough proof to base public policy on.  And, the meterogolists cant even tell you with 100% certainty if it will rain tomorrow.  Why would you believe them when some of them are forecasting a far fetched disaster far off in the future.  It just doesnt add up.

And, I would follow the money.  Who benefits from "global warming" being believed by the public?  Well, I think the scientists arguing in favor of it will receive additional funding from the feds if they can just convince the public things are really bad.  Dont fall for it.

Here is a good article that debunks most of the green movement:  http://www.globalclimate.org/climscience/01-0802-Lomborg.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is often stated by global warming skeptics, once they have been attacked with a plethora of scientific evidence and knowledge, to claim the "We just don't know" factor. Scientists do know. The American public that has contempt for scientists may not know, but the people that spend their time researching our climate know. I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of scientists in the world have a giant conspiracy against human kind in order to receive funding from the government to keep researching. It just doesn't make sense. It would make sense, however, to say that our president rejects the scientists' claims and tries to end funding to the scientists becuase of the money that lines his pockets that comes directly from the oil companies, whom would be hurt if we made an effort to tackle global warming.

Please, if you're going to give links to websites that "debunk" the global warming "myth" and hte whole green "agenda", then give me a site with some credibility. How about the scientific journal Nature?

[Hendrik]

It makes me laugh when some people claim, that our civilisation doesn't change the climate.

We are definately changeing our climate. The real question is, does it matter?

When the global warming goes on some things may happen:

- average sea level may rise by 1 meter

- there is no longer ice at the south pole

- same goes for north pole

- All ice boars may die

- All insert animal xy may die

- The rain forest may become 20% smaller

- etc...

So who dictates what happens? Yes you are right, its the big companys.

Does Wal Mart care if there are no more ice boars?

Does Microsoft care if sea level rises by 1 meter

Does etc...

I mean, do they really care?

Therefore face it. Things will only change, when they make sense economically.

Do you actually care? Then leave your car at home next time you are going shopping. The shop is too far from your home? You dont care...

Now Flame me

[SOCOM]

Do you actually care? Then leave your car at home next time you are going shopping. The shop is too far from your home? You dont care...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to understand that in America, a car is not a luxury - it's a necessity(w/ the exception of a handful of cities).

We are a suburban nation and don't have adequate public transportation outside our large city cores. Americans love their cars and the privacy they bring them. You can't just expect people to spend 5 or 6 hours each day walking or riding their bikes, when they can run the same errands in less than an hour using a car.

[Hendrik]

You have to understand that in America, a car is not a luxury - it's a necessity(w/ the exception of a handful of cities).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is also true for Germany.

[MR-2]

This is a continuation of a debate in the Rita thread.

It is well documented that we were warmer in the early 20th century than we are now.

It is also well documented that we are still coming off of an ice age, hence the heating.

If anyone agrees with the Butterfly Effect than we can just blame African butterflies for being more active than normal.

As a scientist, I'm going to say what real scientists say when situations like this come up.

I don't know. 

Evidence is so easily skewed one way or the other.  If you want me to, I can show how each of those charts posted in the other thread can have fully biased data.  It works both ways though.  Counter arguments can just as easily have biased data.

Someone made a great point in the other thread.  If we can barely predict the weather next week, who are we to say what next year shall be like?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would actually like to see what the sampling bias is for the graphs.

[SOCOM]

This is also true for Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I'm confused, why did you say: "Do you actually care? Then leave your car at home next time you are going shopping. The shop is too far from your home? You dont care..."

People do care, but I don't know anyone who is willing to spend 2 hours walking to their favorite shopping area when they can get there by car in 10 minutes.

[Viper]

I would actually like to see what the sampling bias is for the graphs.

Regarding the hockey stick graph.

Several researchers found Mann and Jones made errors in the collection and use of varying data from multiple sources, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations, inappropriately eliminated specific proxy records that they felt were inaccurate and employed statistical methods that removed long time period trends, such as the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).

-- Mann published a retraction in the June 2004 issue of Geophysical Research, in which he admits underestimating the temperature variations indicated by the proxy data by more than one-third since 1400, which accounts for why he missed the Little Ice Age. Strangely, Mann still argues this considerable error doesn't impact his conclusions.

-- Further, Legates found the "blade" (or sudden rise in temperature) of Mann's hockey stick could not be reproduced using common statistical techniques, or even employing the same techniques as Mann and Jones.

You admit the second graph isn't very accurate.

Graph 3: That chart covers only America and not the world.

-Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.

The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.

^that is considered a normal weather pattern of fluctuations. We are on the receiving end of the tough stuff

of this pattern that lasts for decades at a time.

Sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years

Greenland was named GREENland for a very good reason. Strange it's no longer green since we are warming up.

[Brickell]

Someone made a great point in the other thread. If we can barely predict the weather next week, who are we to say what next year shall be like?

As a scientist you should know the difference in scales. One is a climatological prediction the other a meteorological macro prediction. Though related they are completely different things. I could predict that the Patriots will have a better record than the Jags this year, but that doesn't mean I have the foggiest of what the score of Sunday's game.

Meteorologist don't go around making climate predictions and climatoligist don't go around making weather forecasts.

Point not so great after all.

[Charleston native]

It makes me laugh when some people claim, that our civilisation doesn't change the climate...

It makes me laugh when people think that we are in control of the weather on this planet along with anything else on this planet such as volcanoes, earthquakes, oceans, etc. Has anybody considered that the reason why we're warmer is due to something else other than on Earth? The sun fluctuates in its energy levels and also sends out stronger and weaker levels of radiation. The sun could be the reason for all of the weather! :shifty: Actually, here is another thing to consider: observations of Mars have reported the polar icecaps on that planet are shrinking. Hmmm...there might be merit to the sun being the culprit. Anyways, just my two cents.

[MR-2]

It is well documented that we were warmer in the early 20th century than we are now.

It is also well documented that we are still coming off of an ice age, hence the heating.

If anyone agrees with the Butterfly Effect than we can just blame African butterflies for being more active than normal.

I'd like to see the documentation that shows a warm early 20th century also. The "ice age" also came off of a dominating warm period, one which we have now surpassed in magnitude, in substantially less time, with no sign of slowing down.

[Viper]

"Taking a longer view of climate history deepens our perspective. For example, during what's known as the Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, the Earth's temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than they are today. "

"The lessons of our recent history and of this longer history are clear: It is not possible to know now how much of the warming over the last 100 or so years was caused by human activities and how much was because of natural forces."

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=193

"considerable evidence exists that the climate of the last millennium fluctuated significantly - from a Medieval Warming period with temperatures comparable to today's averages to a colder Little Ice Age that persisted until late in the 19th century. The IPCC's conclusion rests on a dubious manipulation of data used to infer climatic conditions in past centuries that makes it "fit" with the global warming interpretation of temperatures recorded by instruments in the 20th century."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

Ever take sunspots into account? They do heat up the suns surface. Since we love graphs so much.

"the lowest temperatures in the early 1900s correspond to the lowest solar activity (weak cycle 14), the further temperature rise follows the increase in solar activity; the decrease in solar activity in cycle 20 is accompanied by the temperature fall [from 1950-1970], and the subsequent growth of solar activity in cycles 21 and 22 entails the temperature rise [of the last quarter century]."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981669/posts

I'll post 7 world regions and their temp extremes and the date recorded.

Location -- Temp F -- Year

Africa -------- 136 --- 1922

NA ----------- 134 --- 1913

Asia --------- 129 --- 1942

Aust --------- 128 --- 1889

Euro --------- 122 --- 1881

SA ----------- 120 --- 1905

Oceania ----- 108 --- 1912

Every single one of these locations have had their lowest recorded temperatures in much more recent times. Some were in the 1990's.

Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2005

[Charleston native]

That's what I was thinking of, Viper, sunspots. Thank you for pointing that out.

[monsoon]

Every single one of these locations have had their lowest recorded temperatures in much more recent times. Some were in the 1990's.

Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2005

Global warming causes weather to be much more dramatic. That is why you are seeing record lows now. Its isn't all about being hot, but rather what does a warming earth do to the climate. However the big problem is that winters are warmer now and this is leading to all the problems we are seeing. I am sure you can put a thermometer somewhere on the earth and find a new record low.

You have already claimed there is absolutely no evidence that global warming is linked to human activity, but then turn around and attempt to look up some numbers to disprove it. You can't have it both ways. I tend to disagree with that notion however as the release of billions of tons of stored carbon into the envirornment is going to have an effect on the weather. To deny that really means you deny basic scientific principles. If that is your choice I don't have a problem with that, but it doens't change the science and what is happening.

[ngp]

You have already claimed there is absolutely no evidence that global warming is linked to human activity, but then turn around and attempt to look up some numbers to disprove it. You can't have it both ways.

I think his claim is that there is no conclusive evidence that that global warming is caused by human activity. And from what I've heard from other experts not employed by an idealogical thinktank, they would agree.

Viper isn't arguing that we should use the atmosphere as our own personal carbon dump. He isn't arguing that conservation and pro-environmental policy is bad. He isn't trying to propagate Republican hate-mongering. All he's doing is pointing out what should be obvious: a politically motivated, overzealous approach to something as complicated as global climate change isn't going to answer any questions.

[MR-2]

"Taking a longer view of climate history deepens our perspective. For example, during what's known as the Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, the Earth's temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than they are today. "

"The lessons of our recent history and of this longer history are clear: It is not possible to know now how much of the warming over the last 100 or so years was caused by human activities and how much was because of natural forces."

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=193

"considerable evidence exists that the climate of the last millennium fluctuated significantly - from a Medieval Warming period with temperatures comparable to today's averages to a colder Little Ice Age that persisted until late in the 19th century. The IPCC's conclusion rests on a dubious manipulation of data used to infer climatic conditions in past centuries that makes it "fit" with the global warming interpretation of temperatures recorded by instruments in the 20th century."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

Ever take sunspots into account? They do heat up the suns surface. Since we love graphs so much.

"the lowest temperatures in the early 1900s correspond to the lowest solar activity (weak cycle 14), the further temperature rise follows the increase in solar activity; the decrease in solar activity in cycle 20 is accompanied by the temperature fall [from 1950-1970], and the subsequent growth of solar activity in cycles 21 and 22 entails the temperature rise [of the last quarter century]."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981669/posts

I'll post 7 world regions and their temp extremes and the date recorded.

Location -- Temp F -- Year

Africa -------- 136 --- 1922

NA ----------- 134 --- 1913

Asia --------- 129 --- 1942

Aust --------- 128 --- 1889

Euro --------- 122 --- 1881

SA ----------- 120 --- 1905

Oceania ----- 108 --- 1912

Every single one of these locations have had their lowest recorded temperatures in much more recent times. Some were in the 1990's.

Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2005

Who are you quoting? A computer programmer, a politician, a researcher specializing in climatology?

The record highs and lows are a bit confusing. Are you referring to the highest temperatures ever recorded on each continent? Or are you referring to the highest average each continent has ever attained, and how long were these maintained? I don't see how that could be relevant to global warming, since that's supposed to be dealing with global temperatures. (Well, really, looking at those it's clear those are area-specific. There's no way the entire North American continent got 134* on average. So those are pretty irrelevant.)

Even if the entire earth is 1* hotter than normal, individual areas will still undergo fluctuation. We're interested in the oceans that are reaching record average temperatures each year; we're interested in the consistency and regularity of those temperatures over time, not somewhere in sudan that might've been the surface of the sun briefly back in 1922, but hasn't quite gotten that hot since.

Sunspots definitely make the surface of the Sun hotter (our star's climate is quite variable after all), and we absorb thermal energy from the intensity of solar radiation. Most scientists agree that Earth's warming trend is a combination of solar radiation and greenhouse gases. I don't see why it should have to be one or the other, though despite your "objective" viewpoint, it really looks like you've resigned any notion that it is possible that humans are contributing to global warming. I've heard tons of figures about CO2 ranging from 2% affect to 50%. I'm looking through to find credible sources on what its affect should be, along with CO, aerosols, methane, and any other stuff.

Something interesting I've been puzzling over is that a lot of the airborne pollutants we've been spewing should have blocked sunlight to a degree, possibly countering their affect on global temperatures from absorbed sunlight, or at least countering the sun's thermal emissions somewhat. (The sootier, dirtier chemicals that have been mostly abandoned at this point). What now that we aren't using these? Should we see an acceleration of the process? I guess in a year's time we'll see.

Overall I agree with the sentiment that it is important to leave politics out of scientific reasoning. My point is that global warming is a process deduced entirely scientifically, and it is very supported by extensive evidence. What do we do about it? We almost can't do anything. The rationale for abandoning fossil fuels is mostly economic, not environmental.

[Viper]

The backgrounds of the individuals quoted in my post can be found in the links I provided under them.

Some of you guys understood my point. We simply do not know. We have no proof we are warming and if we are, we have no proof it it's influenced by man, ice age recession, natural geomagnetic fluctuations, sunspots, etc... What we have are circumstances. You get laughed out of court on circumstancial evidence alone. To make a judgement as to conclude fact for any of them is totally unscientific and foolish.

Should we cut down on greenhouse gases? Sure we should and that's simply because we know it causes pollution. Policies like the Kyoto Protocol are fundamentally flawed because of this circumstancial situation and thankfully our government saw that.

[RiverwoodCLT]

What is going on here?

Glacier Bay 1941

Glacier Bay

Glacier Bay 2004

[Viper]

Taken from glacial geologist Bruce Molnia who has been studying Glacier Bay for years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...kaglaciers.html

**********

"We are certainly experiencing a climatic change that's having a pronounced effect in some areas of the world. But we don't know what component of the change is natural versus what's human induced," said Molnia. "The Earth is not warming uniformly. In Alaska there's no question it's warming, and has been for at least the last five decades. But whether this is a function of natural climate processes or driven by human activities, we just can't say."

Little Ice Age

Scientists disagree about the precise dates, but the world endured a 500-year cold snap from around 1350 to 1850 called the Little Ice Age. Although the global climate event affected different areas at different times, in general it was marked by temperatures several degrees cooler than present. Alaskan glaciers-and glaciers worldwide-advanced considerably during the Little Ice Age.

************

Again, as I kep pointing out, even if we are warming, it's impossible to tell if we are to blame or nature and this glacial geologist studying the very glaciers you provided in your images fully agrees with me.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

This article from CNN.com makes the most sense from what I know about hurricanes (not an awful lot).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23...ycle/index.html

[MR-2]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...anewarming.html

(another hurricane article to supplement that one)

***********

The glaciers in Alaska, Chile, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Iran are all temperate glaciers. Temperate or "warm" glaciers are always very close to melting. They tend to lose mass in the summer heat, but gain it from winter precipitation. Nearly all of the world's temperate glaciers are retreating, thinning, or stagnating.]

***********

That's only mildly severe, of course. I'd hesitate to call glacier bay 'temporary ice' but whatever. Furthermore, that article was in 2001. Back then, a lot of evidence we currently have for global warming didn't exist, so authorities such as the one you quoted would've been correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3138

***********

Between 1978 and 2000, 1.2 million square kilometres of apparently permanent ice melted away. That is an area five times the size of Britain and represents a loss of nine per cent per decade.

***********

I think the complete melting of the Arctic ice cap is a bit more pressing.

***********

Some of you guys understood my point. We simply do not know. We have no proof we are warming and if we are, we have no proof it it's influenced by man, ice age recession, natural geomagnetic fluctuations, sunspots, etc... What we have are circumstances. You get laughed out of court on circumstancial evidence alone. To make a judgement as to conclude fact for any of them is totally unscientific and foolish.

***********

You've still offered no scenarios contrary to earth warming. Is all of our temperature data wrong? Do the thousands of miles of missing ice not count as thermal energy indicators? Global average temperatures are higher than any time during recorded history. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are correspondingly higher. Most of that CO2 comes from us. It's not that difficult to make, y'know. Sunspots are great and all, but their level of recurrance doesn't line up with our heating pattern, and it dips to almost 0 every few years anyway. It's a factor--probably. It isn't the only factor. It probably isn't the main factor.

Calling highly supported statistics 'circumstantial' amounts to the same credibility as calling any evidence 'circumstantial'. Until you come up with evidence in support of whatever the hell it is you're supporting, it's still the best word to go by.

[SOCOM]

just thought I'd play devil's advocate here...because I'm pretty neutral on global warming.

To the people who believe Global warming is causing the recent string of stronger Hurricanes...how do you explain Dr. Gray and Max Mayfield, the two foremost experts on hurricanes, saying global warming probably has nothing to do with it? Max Mayfield also said that strong hurricanes happen in cycles, for instance in the 50's and 60's there were as many strong hurricanes as there were from the mid 90's to today.

It should be noted that I heard this "info" on the Rush Limbaugh radio show, so I have no idea if he's spinning the "facts" to support his own idealogy.

[monsoon]

Rush Limbaugh? I think that speaks for itself as the source.

[Brickell]

It's true that they both said that and I tend to believe them to a point.

As someone who has studied the matter, I personally believe that global warming is happening and that it is man made, but...

Hurricanes are complicated things. Global warming may play a role in making them stronger when viewed on the long term average but to say that Katrina and Rita hit Cat 5 because of global warming is going overboard. There appears to be no connection between cyclogenesis and global warming. The active hurricane seasons are caused by the thermohaline cycle in the Atlantic ocean. Right now it's in a warm period, causing more active seasons. Other things that may affect hurricane activity are the more famous El Nino/ENSO and the less known North Atlantic oscillation. Like ripples in a puddle these can overlap and cancel each other out causing very anomolous years.

It's also important to note that "global warming" should really be termed global climate change. It's the relatively quick change in climate that we should be worried about, not warming. Think a permanent El Nino. It's not that California gets a bunch of rain during El Nino years, it's that they're not used to it or built for it. What could happen is a matter of debate but most agree that the climate is changing. One idea is that global warming could actually shut down the Gulf Stream causing an "ice age" in the Northern Atlantic and Europe. The world would still be "warmer" but the key is climate change.

[RiverwoodCLT]

What is happing is a lot of volcano activity under the oceans warming up the water. If this keeps up, it could put us into another ice age. At the present time the Gulf Stream is about 1/4 of it flow. This could cool easthern USA and put northern Europe in a deep freeze.

We are not heading to warming but towards another iceage. It could happen in about another 20 years.

http://www.iceagenow.com/

Miami, Fla just might become a big boom town.