Politics > Politics-USA > The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result of global warming?
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2007 09:45:54 AM |
| Object: |
The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result of global warming? |
The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result
of global warming?
By Michael Mccarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 21 August 2007
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2881385.ece
Why are we asking this now?
Because hurricanes like the one which has careered across the
Caribbean and was last night striking Mexico are only formed when the
surface temperature of the ocean exceeds a specific point, which is
26C.
As the oceans warm globally with climate change, much larger areas of
water will exceed the threshold, and more energy will be available to
power a given storm. On the face of it, therefore, the connection
might seem a reasonable, even a natural one.
So is it happening already?
Some scientists have put forward fairly dramatic evidence that it may
be, and this has been seized on by the environmental community as
another piece of the global warming jigsaw, to impress on governments
the need to act to cut back on the carbon emissions causing the
climate to heat up. But other scientists resolutely dispute the
proposition, and say it cannot be proved.
What is the dramatic evidence?
It came in two peer-reviewed scientific papers published within a
short time of each other in the summer of 2005. They kicked off the
whole hurricane-global warming argument. In fact, they caused a
sensation. The first, in the journal Nature, was by Kerry Emanuel of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading
hurricane researchers. Dr Emmanuel devised a new way of measuring
hurricane intensity which he called the power dissipation index, and
he said he could detect an increase in this which could be related to
increases in sea surface temperatures over recent decades.
The second paper was by Greg Holland of the National Centre for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Peter Webster of the
Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (published in Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society). Holland and Webster said they had
discovered a rise in the number of Atlantic hurricanes that tracked
the increase in sea surface temperature related to climate change over
the last century, and taking the conventional measure of hurricane
strength, the Saffir-Simpson scale, they said that the number of
storms that were reaching the top categories of 4 and 5 had doubled in
recent decades.
And these papers caused a sensation?
They sure did. A worldwide one.
Not least because they were published in 2005, in the middle of the
worst season of Atlantic hurricanes on record, which culminated in the
disaster of Hurricane Katrina which hammered New Orleans so terribly
in August. The 2005 season included a record 26 named storms, of which
13 grew big enough to be classified as hurricanes (so many that for
the first time since 1953, when scientists started give tropical
Atlantic storms names, letters of the Greek alphabet had to be used,
as meteorologists had run through the original list of 21
alphabetically-ordered names. The final 2005 tropical storm was
christened Epsilon.) For the environmental community the two papers
were yet another devastating indictment of the lack of action on
climate change, especially by the US government of George W Bush.
So is the connection proved?
Not at all. It is hotly disputed. The difficulty lies in how we use
and interpret the database of records of previous storms. Before the
late-Sixties and early-Seventies, there was no global satellite
coverage and measurement of tropical cyclones (which is the generic
term for circular tropical storms - they're hurricanes in the
Atlantic, typhoons in the west Pacific and cyclones in the Indian
Ocean). So the strength of some early recorded storms may have been
misinterpreted - they may actually have been much stronger than we
think, and thus a general increase in intensity may be an illusion.
Some storms may well have not been observed at all.
Furthermore, an increase may be part of a natural cycle, rather than
being caused by human activities. The leading proponent of the no-link
theory, Christopher Landsea, a senior American hurricane researcher
and forecaster based at the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, has
published research contending that the historical hurricane database
simply cannot support the claims made by Emanuel, and by Holland and
Webster, in their respective papers.
Has the argument become politicised?
'Fraid so. For example, the Bush administration put forward Landsea to
assert that there was no connection between Hurricane Katrina and
climate change, and he is often attacked by environmentalists. But he
is a serious and respected scientist and he is by no means alone in
his concern that the record does not show an increase in hurricane
power and strength.
One of Britain's leading experts on tropical cyclones, Julian Heming
of the UK Met Office, says: "I am of the view that this issue of the
historical database is a significant one, and I think we need to be
cautious about deriving too many definitive conclusion from the
historical records."
Is there no consensus?
Well, there is much more of a consensus between scientists about what
is likely to happen in future, than about what has happened in the
past or what is happening now. The supercomputer models used for
climate change prediction tend to show an increase in future hurricane
wind speed and rainfall if the climate continues to warm (though not
in hurricane frequency). This is not generally disputed. However, it
is a smaller increase than that which the two papers from 2005 claim
to have detected already.
Where is the argument now?
We can give you chapter and verse on that. Last November, the World
Meteorological Organisation held an International Workshop on Tropical
Cyclones in Costa Rica, and at its conclusion, it issued a one-page
document entitled "Summary Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate
Change". Its first paragraph states: "Though there is evidence both
for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal
[signs of a human cause such as man-made global warming] in the
tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be
made on this point."
So the jury's out?
Not quite. The fourth assessment report of the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, published in February this year, gives a
table showing recent climatic trends. It suggests that intense
tropical cyclone activity has probably increased in some regions since
1970, and under the heading "Likelihood of a human contribution to
observed trend" it observes succinctly: "More likely than not."
So is climate change to blame?
Yes...
* The historical database shows a definite increase in frequency and
intensity (one view)
* Supercomputer climate models unanimously predict that climate change
will make hurricanes worse
* Warmer oceans contain more energy for storms
No...
* The historical database cannot be trusted to prove an increase in
frequency and intensity (the other view)
* Any increase may be part of a natural cycle
* Even in a warming world, various climatic mechanisms may act to
reduce increases
--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 09:51:09 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bîllary/2008" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 09:52:29 AM |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 09:59:45 AM |
|
|
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bîllary/2008" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 10:11:03 AM |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF whatsoever of man made "global warming". Left wing nuts
like you like to dismiss natural phenomenon such as the earth's tilt, Solar
activity and orbital cycles to explain the warming of the planet. You do so
because that's what you've been told to believe. You don't think for
yourself, you're just a parrot. And you show up on USENET and regurgitate
the crap you've been fed just like your left wingnut puppetmasters told you
to. And you're doing a good job at it. You're what Joseph Staling used to
call a "useful idiot".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 01:17:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Bîllary/2008 said about:
Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF whatsoever of man made "global warming". Left wing nuts
like you like to dismiss natural phenomenon such as the earth's tilt, Solar
activity and orbital cycles to explain the warming of the planet. You do so
because that's what you've been told to believe. You don't think for
yourself, you're just a parrot. And you show up on USENET and regurgitate
the crap you've been fed just like your left wingnut puppetmasters told you
to. And you're doing a good job at it. You're what Joseph Staling used to
call a "useful idiot".
The good news is, scientific protocol (method?)
says since you are against scientific consensus,
you bear the burden of proof.
This pretty much wipes out kooks like you who
have only feelgoodisms and soundgoodisms as evidence,
-- which I presume is why your kind hates science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chico Samooza" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 02:16:16 PM |
|
|
"Bîllary/2008" <F#%K_Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
news:bgDyi.1136$Uf7.934@trnddc06...
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF whatsoever of man made "global warming".
The US gov't says you are a lying imbecile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 10:20:31 AM |
|
|
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF
Feel free to 'prove' to us that there is no 'proof'.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bîllary/2008" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 11:58:27 AM |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:6pDyi.16$_75.7@newsfe06.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF
Feel free to 'prove' to us that there is no 'proof'.
Why should I provide you with any links? You've already been told not to
beleive it. And like a good little lemming you do what you're told to do by
your left wing nut puppetmasters. But if you do ever grow a brain. Try the
internet. The information is free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 01:55:07 PM |
|
|
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:6pDyi.16$_75.7@newsfe06.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF
Feel free to 'prove' to us that there is no 'proof'.
Why should I provide you with any links? You've already been told not to
beleive it. And like a good little lemming you do what you're told to do by
your left wing nut puppetmasters. But if you do ever grow a brain. Try the
internet. The information is free.
Translation: "I can't provide you with any links that haven't been shot
down a 1000 times before."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bîllary/2008" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 02:17:24 PM |
|
|
"The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message
news:46cb350c$0$4094$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:6pDyi.16$_75.7@newsfe06.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:E5Dyi.23$E52.11@newsfe12.lga...
Bîllary/2008 wrote:
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because we can read papers in scientific journals, and compare those
results empirically against observational reality.
What's your excuse?
There is NO PROOF
Feel free to 'prove' to us that there is no 'proof'.
Why should I provide you with any links? You've already been told not to
beleive it. And like a good little lemming you do what you're told to do
by your left wing nut puppetmasters. But if you do ever grow a brain.
Try the internet. The information is free.
Translation: "I can't provide you with any links that haven't been shot
down a 1000 times before."
That's liberal speak for "I'm covering my ears, and stomping my feat, I
can't hear you lah lah lah lah lah lah lah lah lah lah lah...."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 10:11:15 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 10:52 am, "B=EEllary/2008" <F#
%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Because it is supported by almost all climatologists around the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tartarus" |
|
| Title: Re: American Fascists get their Science From Op-Eds |
21 Aug 2007 10:11:33 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 8:52 am, "B=EEllary/2008" <F#
%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:BZCyi.18$E52.13@newsfe12.lga...
Captain Compassion wrote:
The Big Question
Why do American Fascists get their science from newspaper opeds?
Why do left wing nuts buy into gullible warming as "science"?
Global climate modeling papers are published in peer reviewed
scientific journals. Those journals are the most reliable places to
get scientific information. If you are getting it anywhere else, it
has been distorted by misunderstanding and /or downright fraud.
Tartarus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
