Global Warming and Hurricanes

[TennBear]

all this global warming and hurricanes is of course caused by george bush;anyone in a right state of mind knows this. geez man you should have signed that kyoto agreement.

Dare I note a touch a sarcasm? I thought that I was the only allowed to show that.

[monsoon]

Wilma has surprised weather forecasters and has quickly grown from a tropical storm to a CAT 5 storm in less than one day an now threatens Florida. Forgetting this year we tie the all time record for number of named storms in a season, the strength of this storm is unprecidented for an Atlantic storm. As I said earlier in this thread, global warming is making the hurricane season much worse.

Wilma is the most powerful Atlantic Basin storm, ever.

[TennBear]

Metro, this year we have already tied the most number of Hurricanes as well as named storms and the season still has 6 weeks to go. Side bar for tie-ins:

The Amazon Basin is at its lowest water level on record. This is making shipping from some of the ports difficult. The reason given is two fold. The high number of hurricanes in the Atlantic creating a situation where the clouds over South America stay low and do not rise where they can create rain clouds and an increase in the amount of deforestation.

That North West Passage may soon be there. The Artic Ice keeps drawing back. There is now concern that the Polar Bear may become the first animal to become extinct due to man-made climate change. The Permafrost area in Russia is shrinking releasing Ozone from the Peat speeding the melting of the Permafrost.

And no I'm not blaming any one group. This did not start over the last decade, it is ongoing since the start of the Industrial Revolution and it will not stop even if the US cut-back on our emissions. There will have to be a technology transfer to developing nations for them to skip past some of the stages of development, the world will have to cut back on population growth, and people need to recognize that certain things that we are used to and have held for years are not sustainable. Do I thiink it will happen. Yes eventually, but not until things become far worse than they are now and the costs both pricewise and ecologywise force changes.

Without a doubt, many that are to blame will still say that there is no corelation.

[Viper]

I have to admit, it's been 2 insane years in a row for hurricaes.

Florida was hit with 4 last year and now we have our 3rd Cat 5 this year witht eh latest being the strongest ever on Atlantic record.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Sun flares are causing a lot of this warming, and it is causing problems on other planets. This is not cause by man.

The Solar flares are the most active on record.

We are in for some big weather changes.

We do not have weather records going back 20,000 years, so we do not know what is nornal.

What is happening now could be normal.

[RiversideGator]

The number of named hurricanes in the Atlantic basin this year ties the record set in 1933. The records dont really go much farther back than that since we didnt even know about many hurricanes until they hit land back then. As for the strongest hurricane in the Atlantic basin, this is measured by barometric pressure. It is the lowest ever recorded, but hurricanes have their lowest pressures over water and we didnt start flying hurricane hunters into the eye of storms until 1944. So, it is quite likely that more powerful storms existed in the previous upswings in hurricane activity in the 1930s and late 1800s and we just couldnt measure them over water for obvious reasons. As for a link between "global warming" and hurricane frequency/intensity, I will believe this when recognized hurricane experts, rather than armchair meteorologists, conclude that there exists such a link.

As to the warming of the arctic and the satellite photos, these might be more compelling if we have comparison photos from the early 1900s, 1800s, and farther back in time. A sample of satellite photos of just 30 years proves very little in terms of what the climate is doing in relation to man's behavior.

For more on hurricane hunters, see: http://www.hurricanehunters.com/

For more on hurricane cycles from a recognized hurricane expert, see: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/whurbad.htm

[RiversideGator]

Also, from the hurricane hunter website (based on 2002 figures, I believe):

Can u tell me why this year, we seem to of had more storms/hurricanes throughout the world than usual?

Answer: Depends upon where you're looking!

The Atlantic basin was, indeed, more active this year than "average"... 8 hurricanes, while an average year has 6... What was unusual was how many of them became really strong hurricanes: an "average" year has 2 major hurricanes (Category 3 or greater: 111+ mph winds), while this year we had 5 storms that made it to Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale (130+ mph). This was very unusual. Look at the National Hurricane Center's review of the '99 season.

On the other hand, the Eastern North Pacific had one of its most inactive periods on record: It had 9 / 6 / 2 (tropical storms / hurricanes / major hurricanes), compared to the long-term average of 16 / 9 / 4.

The Western Pacific was average for named storms (25), and below average for typhoons (12 vs. the average of 18).

SOURCE: http://www.hurricanehunters.com/askus.htm#many

So, it appears that the Western Pacific was average that year and the Eastern Pacific was at a near record low for hurricane activity. How does this fit into your global warming causes more hurricanes theory?

For more confirmation that there has not been a global upswing in hurricane activity, see this link: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html

In short: Dont be so America-centric. Think globally.

[monsoon]

So, it appears that the Western Pacific was average that year and the Eastern Pacific was at a near record low for hurricane activity. How does this fit into your global warming causes more hurricanes theory?

In short: Dont be so America-centric. Think globally.

Well on the same page where that link was shown, there is an article that does admit there is global warming and they don't yet have the theoretical knowledge to determine how it affect hurricane activity but they admit that it will occur.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

I hope that gives you the answer to what you were seeking.

[RiversideGator]

I agree that there appears to have been a 1.5 degree rise in measured temperatures in the last 150 years. I have said this before. I have stated that there has been no conclusive evidence that this is linked to anything man has done. I dont think anyone has that proof or the debate would be over. If I am proven wrong, I will admit it. It has not happened yet. I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to this environmentalist religion.

Also in the link I provided from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

Some prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004; NCAR 2004). But the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage.

And this is also of interest:

Since 1995 there has been an increase in the frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.. But the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900 (Gray et al. 1997; Landsea et al. 1999; Goldenberg et al. 2001). Consequently, in the absence of large or unprecedented trends, any effect of greenhouse gases on the behavior of hurricanes is necessarily very difficult to detect in the context of this documented variability. Perspectives on hurricanes are no doubt shaped by recent history, with relatively few major hurricanes observed in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s, compared with considerable activity during the 1940s, 50s and early 60s. The period from 1944 to 1950 was particularly active for Florida. During that period eleven hurricanes hit the state, at least one per year, resulting in the equivalent of billions of dollars in damage in each of those years (Pielke and Landsea 1998).

Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades

So, the NOAA site does not acknowledge a link between global warming and hurricanes. Instead, they specifically state that there is no measurable linkage between any global warming that has occured and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and that alleged linkage is the false assumption behind this entire thread. For some reason metro, you failed to mention these little tidbits I quoted above.

[Viper]

As I keep trying to say, all true scientists will answer, in their own words, "We don't know".

Far too many variables with potential influence of intenisty and frequency to say otherwise.

[Viper]

As I keep trying to say, all true scientists will answer, in their own words, "We don't know".

Far too many variables with potential influence of intenisty and frequency to say otherwise. We simply do not have enough conclusive data.

[monsoon]

As I keep trying to say, all true scientists will answer, in their own words, "We don't know".

Far too many variables with potential influence of intenisty and frequency to say otherwise. We simply do not have enough conclusive data.

That is indeed the case for our scientists that work for the Federal government. If anyone comes out and says there is global warming, the Bush Administration will shut them down. As we all know driving automobiles, and building more highways so we can drive even more cars is good for the economy. We don't have government anymore that is based on science and common sense, but one based on idealology. And that idealogy includes calling anyone concerned about the environement, if it places restrictions on business, crazed tree huggers that ought to be put away. Any scientist that really speaks his mind will see his job disappear. That is why you have all these reports that use the word "may".

As evidence of this, one of Bush's biggest supporters, Pat Robinson said on his 700 club TV show yesterday, that all these disasters were the result of people not listening to God anymore. Since the hurricanes keep hitting Florida & Texas, maybe there is something to that. Maybe Bush's new government entitlement (wasn't he for smaller govt?) Faith Based initiatives haven't taken hold in those places yet.

Personally I think we get stronger and more frequent storms because the oceans are hotter. It is simple college physics, but we are not supposed to listen to that anymore. (at least here in the USA)

[rhaney2]

That is indeed the case for our scientists that work for the Federal government. If anyone comes out and says there is global warming, the Bush Administration will shut them down. As we all know driving automobiles, and building more highways so we can drive even more cars is good for the economy. We don't have government anymore that is based on science and common sense, but one based on idealology. And that idealogy includes calling anyone concerned about the environement, if it places restrictions on business, crazed tree huggers that ought to be put away. Any scientist that really speaks his mind will see his job disappear. That is why you have all these reports that use the word "may".

As evidence of this, one of Bush's biggest supporters, Pat Robinson said on his 700 club TV show yesterday, that all these disasters were the result of people not listening to God anymore. Since the hurricanes keep hitting Florida & Texas, maybe there is something to that. Maybe Bush's new government entitlement (wasn't he for smaller govt?) Faith Based initiatives haven't taken hold in those places yet.

Personally I think we get stronger and more frequent storms because the oceans are hotter. It is simple college physics, but we are not supposed to listen to that anymore. (at least here in the USA)

I think it's a natural weather patterns,they have been changing since time began,i don't think God would destroy babies,children,old sick people.

Pat Robertson is the guy that said he prayed and turned a hurricane some years ago.

Global warming,no proof ,yes,the earth is getting warmer,but are we in for another ice age,could be as ice pak melt,more water and more moisture =equals more snow and rain,that could freese and create an ice ige again.

i agree that the gov.has unleased the tree cutters,contruction,about everything that is destroying our land.

and now we have big oil stealing the most northern lands with new oil drilling.

we need better control and a leader that can deal with the facts.

[Viper]

That is indeed the case for our scientists that work for the Federal government. If anyone comes out and says there is global warming, the Bush Administration will shut them down. As we all know driving automobiles, and building more highways so we can drive even more cars is good for the economy. We don't have government anymore that is based on science and common sense, but one based on idealology. And that idealogy includes calling anyone concerned about the environement, if it places restrictions on business, crazed tree huggers that ought to be put away. Any scientist that really speaks his mind will see his job disappear. That is why you have all these reports that use the word "may".

As evidence of this, one of Bush's biggest supporters, Pat Robinson said on his 700 club TV show yesterday, that all these disasters were the result of people not listening to God anymore. Since the hurricanes keep hitting Florida & Texas, maybe there is something to that. Maybe Bush's new government entitlement (wasn't he for smaller govt?) Faith Based initiatives haven't taken hold in those places yet.

Personally I think we get stronger and more frequent storms because the oceans are hotter. It is simple college physics, but we are not supposed to listen to that anymore. (at least here in the USA)

LOL, TX and FL are getting hit because God is angry at Bush?

Metroi, what I allude to is the fact that we don't know for certain what variables influence what and by how much. This is basic scientific principle. You never make claims from inconclusive data. And that's not just government scientists, this is world wide.

Remember the spaghetti monster theory. Pirates too. Circumstance and coincidence are not evidence. Example: I wasn't at home the time that Nicole Simpson was murdered. I was in California. In L.A. I used of a a pair of leather gloves. Yep, I guess I did it, right? I mean all the evidence fits, doesn't it? I mean not accounting all the evidence from about 16 million other people in L.A. that also own leather gloves and other inconclusive data.

Here is another more local example. Mayor John Peyton of Jacksonville revoked his support of re-opening Cecil NAS yesterday because of certain fears. We just learned the study was incomplete and other data proved it was no where near as bad of a problem as he was citing. He prematurely made a decision before all data could be analyzed. He did this because he caved under pressure from those that had almost no data at all on the subject but their own fears. America didn't buy into the Kyoto Protocol because the data is inconclusive and the pressure is more based on fear than evidence.

Are the oceans warming? Looks like they could be. Ok, why? Well it could be [insert list of dozens of variables]. We have data on maybe 1/10th of it, if we're lucky. Do you want to make decisions with such limited data?

[RiversideGator]

Do you want to make decisions with such limited data?

Yes Viper. This is the whole point. It isnt that Republicans hate the environment (I know I dont - I am a hunter and fisherman and love the outdoors. This is one reason why I support better development and less immigration: to save the open spaces). The point is that we dont know for sure what is causing the alleged warming and I dont want to cripple the US and world economy on a hunch or half-baked theories. I think we should be moving away from fossil fuels either way, but for other reasons (i.e. less reliance on the Middle East and less localized pollution from auto emissions) and not because of "global warming". This is why the whole "global warming" argument appears akin to a religion to many of us. There is not enough evidence to prove that man is causing any changes but we are supposed to take it on faith. Well, I am not prepared to do this. This is not a conservative vs. liberal argument, it is a reality versus fiction argument.

And, a layman attacking the NOAA scientists as biased is really quite comical. Please cite specific, scientific evidence that shows that they are in the tank for Bush. I doubt you can do this. Until you refute them, we can accept their statements as true for the purposes of this debate.

By the way, according to dictionary.com, "ideology" is "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system". This fits exactly the emotionalist environmental movement: beliefs or doctrines without proven facts. Conservatism is the negation of ideology in that we prefer the proven methods of our fathers to unknown evils brought on by unnecessary change. Think about how logical this is for a moment.

[monsoon]

Conservatism is the negation of ideology in that we prefer the proven methods of our fathers to unknown evils brought on by unnecessary change. Think about how logical this is for a moment.

Indeed, and conservation is being thown out the window in lieu of idealogy not based in science, which proves my point. And honestly, I can't believe that you would think the output of scientists, in a fully government funded operatoin, isn't being controlled by the government. Case in point rather than be faced with the result of a scientific study by scientists that the levy system needed to be upgraded or risk disaster, the Bush administration canceled the study. Its an effective way to keep people in the dark on these matters.

And our current government has a bad track record on the environment and conservationism.

[TennBear]

To All;

Let's not take every point as a personal attack on ideology, religion, party affiliation, or what have you. No, we cannot fully understand all of the ramifications of man's influence on the earth. Some of them have influences that can work in various ways. What we do know is that man's long-term effect on the Earth has been significant and as man's population becomes larger it becomes greater. We also know that no resources are inexhaustible. We also know that we do not know what benefit some plants or animals may be to man and that if we cause them to become extinct we may never know. The US should be in the lead to try to manage the Earth's resources. Instead, we act as if it is our right to use up all of them without regard or forthought. Some of you call yourselves to be scientists and conservationist, but you profess use without control.

[RiversideGator]

Viper: Can you post a website re the possible He3 uses.

If the people in the Bush administration are chickenhawks because they support the Iraq war but did not personally serve in a previous war (although Rumsfeld was an active-duty fighter pilot and Bush was a reserve fighter pilot), then what does that make those who did not fight in any war and do not support the Iraq war? Just plain chickens maybe?

[monsoon]

If the people in the Bush administration are chickenhawks because they support the Iraq war but did not personally serve in a previous war (although Rumsfeld was an active-duty fighter pilot and Bush was a reserve fighter pilot), then what does that make those who did not fight in any war and do not support the Iraq war? Just plain chickens maybe?

So you are calling the moms of the dead and injured soldiers Chicken? I would like to see you do that to their face. It sounds pretty heartless to me and to me it is not an example that good people should follow. War should only be used as a last resort because many people are going to die just as they are starting their lives. Chickenhawks do understand this because when it was their turn to serve, they will pull every trick in the book to keep away from harm, our fearless leader included. They are called chickenhawks when they send others to do something they won't do.

[Ruso]

Viper: Can you post a website re the possible He3 uses.

If the people in the Bush administration are chickenhawks because they support the Iraq war but did not personally serve in a previous war (although Rumsfeld was an active-duty fighter pilot and Bush was a reserve fighter pilot), then what does that make those who did not fight in any war and do not support the Iraq war? Just plain chickens maybe?

Long time has passed since i last checked this. I just had to comment on this. So Riversidegator, are you a chicken for not fighting in the war? For what I know you are not fighting either, you are just supporting those who fight for you.

[monsoon]

We now have tropical storm Alpha. This is the first time, ever, that we have had so many storms that we have run out of names.

[NCB]

Here is Alpha's current projected path.

Thankfully, it is not expected that Alpha will affect the United States, but it is still to early to be sure.

[RiversideGator]

I wasnt calling the mothers of the casualties "chickens" and no I am not in the military, but I support the military and the current foreign engagement (as do most of those who are actually serving in the military based on opinion polls).

As for the hurricanes, metro, have you noticed that the increase in the frequency and intensity of the storms is directly related to the numbers of meetings of the Halliburton board of directors? Coincidence?? I think not.

Stop clouding your judgement on this based on your animosity for Bush. He is irrelavent in regards to the implimentation of He3.

Viper: Everything always comes back to Bush. Bush is responsible for all societal evils - out of wedlock births, poverty, homelessness, ignorance, dependency on foreign oil, etc. And none of these ills existed under the glorious and competent leadership of Bill Clinton. I have the feeling that if Bush were to come up with a way to make every American a millionaire, there would still be those who would be outraged and rage against him. It is just an emotional thing. As for me, I recognize that Bush does some things well and some things poorly, like most politicians.

Indeed there were a lot of benefits that came into the commerical world from the development of the Shuttle. Shame is, they were all in the 1970s as the shuttle has not changed its technology since then.

Here is the link that you requested. Nasa quit being relevant in 1975 when the Apollo/Soyuz program concluded.

metro: So we should abandon space exploration entirely? And, the website you posted looks like the rantings of one anti-NASA individual. That is hardly a learned, scientific explanation of why space exploration is meaningless.

[monsoon]

Viper: Everything always comes back to Bush. Bush is responsible for all societal evils - out of wedlock births, poverty, homelessness, ignorance, dependency on foreign oil, etc. And none of these ills existed under the glorious and competent leadership of Bill Clinton. I have the feeling that if Bush were to come up with a way to make every American a millionaire, there would still be those who would be outraged and rage against him. It is just an emotional thing. As for me, I recognize that Bush does some things well and some things poorly, like most politicians.

I am reminded that you have said that you were not going to post in the Coffee House anymore because you can't control yourself, yet here you are again with a thinly veiled attack on those who would criticize the president for his stupid plans like going to moon & mars to mine helium3. You say you recognize Bush's faults, but the only thing that I have seen you do here is fault everyone else holding the elected President to his responsibilities.

BTW, Clinton has not been in the white house for 5 years. Even most conservatives have gotten beyond attempting to blame Bush's failures on Clinton by now and instead are diving for cover. Maybe you ought to take a clue.

I highly reccommend that you take your own advice and stay out of the coffee house if you just can't resist the urge to attack others on this forum. No matter how well worded.

[Viper]

If you'd like to continue this discussion further, we can take it there. If not, we'll end it and conitunue Global Warming and Hurricanes here.