Global warming and hurricanes part 2: An increase in late-season activity?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 6:33 PM GMT on January 09, 2006

Share this Blog
0
+

Good Tuesday to everyone! This week we need to watch a large extratropical low-pressure system sliding down the coast of Africa towards the Cape Verde Islands. This low is similar to the storms that spawned Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta, and has the potential to slowly gain tropical characteristics and become Tropical Storm Alberto later this week. However, it appears that wind shear levels will probably be too high and the water too cool for a new tropical storm to form. The chances of a tropical storm forming this week are probably around 20%.

Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity (more on this later in January, I've been pulling together a lot of material). Is global warming possibly affecting the length of hurricane season, as well? It seems that an inordinate number of late-season and off-season tropical storms have been forming in the Atlantic the past few years. For example, two December storms formed in 2003, which also had the first-ever April storm, Tropical Storm Ana. Cuba's worst hurricane ever, Hurricane Michelle, hit in November 2001, and the Atlantic's second deadliest hurricane of all time, Hurricane Mitch, lasted into November 1998. Add to this 2005's Greek cousins, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta, which all occurred in November and December. To see if hurricane season is indeed lasting longer, I plotted up the number of days a named storm existed each year from November through April (Figure 1). The data cut-off is 1944--the beginning of reliable hurricane records in the Atlantic, thanks to regular long-range aircraft reconnaissance missions. According to Dr. Chris Landsea's paper, A Climatology of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes, only a very few short-lived tropical storms that formed far out over the open Atlantic were missed by these aircraft missions or ships plying the shipping lanes between Europe and North America. For example, all of 2005's Greek storms were long-lived enough and sufficiently intense that they would have been detected back in the 1944-1960 time frame. Beginning 1960, weather satellites gave us full coverage of all the ocean areas, and it is unlikely we missed any tropical storms after then. Thus, Figure 1 is likely to be an accurate measure of the late-season tropical storm activity for the Atlantic.


Figure 1.Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Atlantic for each year during November through April, 1944-2005. The 2.5 named tropical storm days from the March 2004 hurricane in the South Atlantic that hit Brazil--Hurricane Catarina--are not included.

Looking at Figure 1, we see a noticeable increase in the number of late-season named-storm days in the Atlantic in the past decade, roughly coinciding with the upswing in Atlantic intense hurricane activity that began in 1995. This increase in late-season tropical cyclone activity was not observed during the previous warm phase of theAtlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the natural cycle that greatly influences hurricane activity in the Atlantic. This previous warm phase of the AMO lasted from 1926-1969. Thus, it seems unlikely that the recent upswing in late-season Atlantic tropical storm activity is due to the AMO. Is global warming to blame, then? Global sea surface temperatures in the tropics have increased by .3 degrees C (.5 degrees F) the past century, so it is reasonable to ask if this increase has lengthened hurricane season.

To answer this question, we look at the November though April number of tropical storm days for the Northern Hemisphere's other ocean basins that have tropical cyclones--the Western Pacific (Figure 2) and the Eastern Pacific (Figure 3). Neither ocean basin shows any increase in the length of their hurricane seasons, so global warming has not caused a Northern Hemisphere-wide increase in the length of hurricane seasons. If global warming is to blame for the recent increase in Atlantic late season and off-season tropical storm activity, it is probably through some as yet not understood mechanism, and not directly due to increased the sea surface temperatures over the Atlantic.


Figure 2. Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Northern Hemisphere's Western Pacific Ocean for each year during November through April, 1945-2005.


Figure 3. Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Northern Hemisphere's Eastern Pacific Ocean (off the coast of Mexico) for each year during November through April, 1949-2005

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 107 - 57

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

107. snowboy
9:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Chaser, whether or not coastal areas were once underwater at some point in earth's history does not address the points I made in my last post and the questions I posed. Please try to address them.

And generally folks, we are united by our strong interest in the weather and weather-related phenomena. Let's have a good and vigorous discussion of this crucial issue please, but not get into personal attacks and tirades.


Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
106. hurricanechaser
9:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

I simply corrected your facts, because they weren't fact but simply assumptions. I don't get offended and call others names, or imply I'm more educated if someone disagrees with my perception of an issue.

You stated this was fact, when you have to acknowledge its not. It is simply your right to believe as you deem fit which is certainly appropriate.

"Fact #1..Global warming exists."

"But lets not discount global warming!!!..Its a fact and we need to do the right things now to slow this process down so that our children will have a great place to live in."

Why is it wrong for me to suggest these aren't facts but just your perceived opinions?

I respond to such errors because there are many people in this blogs who don't know any better than to believe what's written as fact. This is especially true when it comes from someone with a Masters degree in meteorology...I respectfully suggest that carries a little more emphasis on moderation before claiming something is fact.

It would be fine to simply say that this is my best educated opinion...nothing more and nothing less which is all my opinions regarding meteorology just for the record.

Thanks,
Tony


105. weatherguy03
9:02 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Yeah Tony wants to get rid of New Orleans..LOL..Another joke!!!
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
104. hurricanechaser
8:54 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Snowboy,

If you have read my recent blogs, you will know I am suggesting that the overpopulation is creating these future disasters which are completly man made in areas that have been historically underwater.

If I'm correct in my belief that we will continue to go through these natural climate changes, then why would it be surprising that many coastal areas would once again be underwater like it was thousands of years ago?

Why would anyone blame the release of greenhouse gases and ignore this obvious reality?:)

Thanks,
Tony


103. weatherguy03
8:54 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Oh and by the way. My first post wasnt even pointed towards you. I didnt ask you for your opinion on my post, you just gave it. I just stated some facts that is all..LOL..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
102. weatherguy03
8:52 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
YW Tony!!!...And yes my Master degree is good enough!!!..LOL..But again, I am the least arrogant person you will ever meet!!..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
101. hurricanechaser
8:49 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

you were the one who make disparaging remarks about me...I simply stated the obvious example of you saying that your Masters degree is all you need to prove you are right.

You not once discuss your views in a rational manner focused on the evidence but resulted to personal attacks.

And I'm the strange dude...coming from you..I will take that as a huge compliment.:)

Thanks,
Tony


100. hurricanechaser
8:34 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey JeffB,

I will answer that clearly and unapologetically that my personal faith is the foremost consideration for every aspect of my life. Naturally, I don't consider myself in any way better than another as a result of Faith for it teaches humility and compassion toward others. I am simply like all others with my fair share of shortcomings.

My references to liberals was ONLY in direct response to those who politicized the issue for me by suggesting my FAITH led me to fall in line with the Conservatives view on this subject.

Moreover, I answered the question specifically regarding the statement one made saying that no one could get any benefit out of the Kyoto treaty for example. I cannot respond without referring to the obvious effect as I personally see it and you are wrong to criticize me for that.

In regards to so called name calling, since when did the term, "Liberals" become a bad word. I consider myself Conservative on Social issues and consider that a complimentary term just as Howard Dean who is head of the Democratic Party feels the same pride in being labeled a liberal.

In our political system, most are defined as either Liberal, Moderate, and conservative. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you correct yourself in making that incorrect judgment and assumption about me.

Thanks,
Tony


99. weatherguy03
8:36 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Yep..Go ahead ask anybody on here chaser...I'll give you about a list of 50 names, and you can ask them if I think I am superior..They even know me and my child personally..You dont know what you are talking about.

I guess you consider yourself far Superior to most others on here. That is not a characteristic I want to teach my child.

Dont worry about what I teach my child. He is doing ok. Your a strange dude. Oh well, have a nice day!!!..LOL..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
98. snowboy
8:14 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Chaser my man, calm down and think about this.

Your position appears to be that since we can't prove humans are causing or contributing to global warming, we should do nothing.

You know when we'll be able to prove humans are causing global warming? When temperatures world-wide are higher than they've ever been in the history of the planet. You know what that world will look like? MUCH warmer climate, much smaller or no glaciers and polar ice caps, sea levels 10s of feet higher than now (i.e. bye-bye coastal cities, Netherlands, Florida, etc.).

Now does it make sense to wait until we have irrefutable proof as outlined above before acting? Or might it be prudent to consider the possibility that our emissions can change the climate, and do everything we reasonably can NOW to reduce them before bad things happen?

I for one am in favour of prudence, rather than reckless faith that "we as a human race [do not have} the power to make such dramatic changes to the Earths climate".

We as humans have clearly had the power to alter everything else on the planet - we've trashed ecosystems, polluted lakes, rivers and oceans, dried up the Aral Sea, changed forests to grasslands, grasslands to deserts, etc. Why should the atmosphere somehow be immune to human-induced changes???
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
97. hurricanechaser
8:19 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

I will gladly respond to your arrogant attitude suggesting that a masters degree in Meteorology somehow makes you more educated than me on subject.

"Dude get off you high horse will ya!!!..You try to dazzle us with your big words, it doesn't work for me. My sufficient evidence is a Masters Degree in Meteorology, that is all I need. I don't need to prove anything else to you. Yes we do need to act now!!! If you don't want to act now, thats your choice. But I am building a better Earth for my child."



I guess that Masters degree makes you an authority on whats best for my children as well. For the record, I am saying there are far greater issues facing our children's future than any unprovable and unsubstantiated belief in human induced global warming. You might be surprised to realize that you don't need a Masters degree for that either.

It is interesting that you chose to attack me personally rather than any rebuttal to my stated facts. I am not here to dazzle anyone with my big words as you put it, it's simply who I am, and I am NOT arrogant enough to assume I am somehow better than another who doesn't have my level of education in our field.

So, please spare me your absurd statements that didn't focus on any substance regarding Global warming. I guess that Masters degree isn't helping to much for you.:)

I find it quite humorous that you're suggesting that I get off my high horse. Where have I ever said I am an authority on anything and that my forecasts are nothing more than MY BEST EDUCATED GUESS. I guess you consider yourself far Superior to most others on here. That is not a characteristic I want to teach my child.

Thanks,
Tony




96. weatherguy03
8:28 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
This has NEVER been about politics for me. If we want to debate really screwing up my childrens future based upon political policy, I certainly can say alot about that reality which is a far more serious concern for their welfare than a SLIGHT increase in Global temperatures that are NOT even close to being a threat to anyone.

Yeah right!!!...What a bunch of B.S!!!
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
95. jeffB
8:28 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Tony,

I respect your knowledge and understanding of climatology, and your standing here as well. I myself have no standing here, and I don't claim any deep knowledge of climatology, but I do follow the debate in Science and Nature, and occasionally track down references from papers published there. On this basis, I have to question your rhetoric. (I don't mean "rhetoric" as a derogatory term, but in its literal definition as "effective use of language to persuade".)

If it's The Other Side that is incessantly politicizing this debate, why is it your posts that most consistently resort to finger-pointing and name-calling ("liberals"), accusations of hidden agendas (the oft-mentioned but never defined "political agenda" of "global-warming proponents"), flag-waving ("a way to bring down our Country economically"), and faith-based climatology ("There is only ONE who could actually do that and HE alone knows the absolute Truth")?

Were I to adopt the same rhetorical approach, I could write volumes about "reactionary, entrenched political/industrial interests and their frantic efforts to discredit the theory of anthropogenic climate change to protect their own wealth and power". I submit that this would be no more nor less accurate and illuminating than your claims to the contrary.

There are many climatologists working on this question. It's a complex issue, and so there's plenty of disagreement to go around. The link you posted above (THE TRUTH ABOUT HURRICANES AND HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING ASSUMPTIONS) seems to say in essence that "climatologists make questionable assumptions", and that's hard to dispute -- questioning assumptions is one of the biggest parts of science. Calling this THE TRUTH, though, doesn't seem accurate -- until it all gets sorted out in the journals, I think it's arrogant to call it anything other than "a dissenting opinion".

My own bet is with those who believe anthropogenic climate change is real, because I have no "inside knowledge" and no better strategy than to go with the scientific majority. But, of course, the best and most exciting science comes when the majority is proven wrong. :-)
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 42
94. Cregnebaa
8:17 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Chaser I wasn't calling you alarmist as much as the Kyoto comment.

Anyway I quite agree with you that the global warming we are experiencing is the part natural cycle of the planet.

Completely ridiculous way of stopping a hurricane, apart from the serious enviromental ramifications, would dropping tons of a drying agent such as silica gel into a hurricane destroy it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
93. weatherguy03
8:13 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
With all due respect to you, Bob (weatherguy03), your so called facts can't be considered no more than your own perceived assumptions. You specifically allude to Global warming as a need for all of us to act now to slow this down, so that our children will have a great place to live in.
Therefore, it appears you are ascribing to the completely unsubstantiad human incuced perspective which is flawed at best. I am surprised that a fellow member of the scientific community could state something as fact without sufficient evidence to provve your theory.



Dude get off you high horse will ya!!!..You try to dazzle us with your big words, it doesnt work for me. My sufficient evidence is a Masters Degree in Meteorology, that is all I need. I dont need to prove anything else to you. Yes we do need to act now!!! If you dont want to act now, thats your choice. But I am building a better Earth for my child.
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
92. Pensacola21
2:15 PM CST on January 10, 2006
Hey Tony! You too... Shoot me an email sometime :-)

See ya later :-)

Katie
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
91. hurricanechaser
8:10 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Katie,

It's nice seeing you again. I hope you are having a great New Year thus far.:)

Your friend,
Tony
90. hurricanechaser
8:08 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Furthermore, there is no greater force that generates such upwelling like a powerful hurricane and it's highly unlikely that anything man made could compete with it.
89. Pensacola21
2:08 PM CST on January 10, 2006
Hello everyone... Just dropping in and out. Have a great day all!

Katie :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
88. hurricanechaser
8:04 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Cyclonebuster,

I was just doing that.

And just for the record, I will answer a question when kindly asked to do so, not when someone tells me to.:)

Thanks,
Tony
87. hurricanechaser
7:48 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey cyclonebusteer,

I just read your idea about the tunnel induced upwelling idea. First of all, how do you suppose to create such an efficient system in a completely hostile environment as the Ocean?

What type of expense would be involved to build something that is highly unlikely to actually work?

Even if we accept all of your conclusions and it worked perfectly, you said it would ONLY be needed over the Gulf Stream where you hope to reduce temperatures to an astonishingly optimistic view.

Therefore, What happens to all the other powerful storms that don't move over the gulf stream, how does your tunnel work on those?

Furthermore, How do you know that a powerful hurricane moving over 75 degree water as you put it over such a small area where it would move back over very warm waters before impacting the coast would mitigate its overall strength one bit?

Isn't it conceivable that a hurricane could move over cooler water for a short period of time as history has shown and still maintain its extreme ferocity?

Do you not realize that hurricanes stir up waters hundreds of feet below the oceans surface?

So, with all do respect, it won't work, but I commend you for the concept. A very thoughtful idea nonetheless.:)

Thanks,
Tony


85. hurricanechaser
7:36 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Cyclonebuster,

I will have to apologize in reality for that reference to having your head in the sand was totally inappropriate.

To those who might think that my strong opinion on this issue is somehow inappropriate, I will once again say that it is based on substantiated and logical facts not assumptions.

Moreover, it is not appropriate to always have an open mind when you strongly believe something to be true. That is called having principles and then being willing to stand up for them regardless of how popular they may be to the rest of the people. I for one don't form my beliefs based upon the popular view or even the view ascribed to by most. The Truths that I believe are a foundation of who I am will not ever be something I make any apologies for. If our society had a vast majority of people who had some resemblance of allegiance to this personal faith and welfare of others, then our Country wouldn't have the REAL problems it faces today.

In reality, we have sacrificed our forefathers convictions and hopes for this great country that they fought to create and preserve for their children only to have their posterity become a selfish, materialistic, prideful,and increasingly immoral society where their principles are considered as out of the mainstream.

This is by far a bigger threat to my children's future than any SLIGHT increase in Global temperature they may occur in the future.

Thanks,
Tony


83. hurricanechaser
7:26 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Cyclonebuster,

I would say that your acceptance of human causes for Global warming suggests you have already buried your head in the sand.:)

And yes, there is NOTHING we can really do to significantly alter these fluctuating cycles of NATURAL climate variability.

I would also respectfully suggest that many more who ascribe to this unsubstantiated claim is building their own little tunnel as well as referenced in my opening comment.:)

Thanks,
Tony


82. hurricanechaser
7:22 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Paul,

Another excellent point. I also alluded to mans incessant arrogance in my earlier posts which is apparent regarding this assumption of human causes for creating Global warming.

It is great seeing you again.:)

Your friend,
Tony


80. hurricanechaser
6:53 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Creg, Cyclonebuster, and Weatherguy,

I will simply repeat my logical assertions that I am not the paranoid one simply the opposite (Creg), and I am the one that wants to keep politics out of the debate, but then again it is most of the supporters who have so politisized this issue!

With all due respect to you, Bob (weatherguy03), your so called facts can't be considered no more than your own perceived assumptions. You specifically allude to Global warming as a need for all of us to act now to slow this down, so that our children will have a great place to live in.

Therefore, it appears you are ascribing to the completely unsubstantiad human incuced perspective which is flawed at best. I am surprised that a fellow member of the scientific community could state something as fact without sufficient evidence to provve your theory.

I have consistently stated facts, not assumptions and called them facts.

Therefore, I shall repeat them once again for you.

1) Global warming exists, but I believe its a direct result of natural climate variability as both Hens and Ft.Walton both alluded to.

2) There is NO way for anyone to ever be able to prove that human activities have had or will have any effects on this real Global warming. Specifically, No One would know if there would've been ANY differences in Global temperatures without the release of greenhouse gas emissions.

3) It is not one study that suggests that the Earth has had a far more intense period of NATURAL Global warming in its history and this REAL Global warming is not even close to being a significant problem for my childrens great grandchidren.

Ok, I gotta ask you Creg, Who seems to be the Paranoid and alarmist nes here?

I will also state I do have an open mind, except a strong opinion based upon factual evidence is not and should not be considered being close minded. Like I've said many times, I began my rsearch more than 10 years ago simply believing what I had heard reported in the media circles. It ws my objectivity and common sense that has helped me form my current view.

This has NEVER been about politics for me. If we want to debate really screwing up my childrens future based upon political policy, I certainly can say alot about that reality which is a far more serious concern for their welfare than a SLIGHT increase in Global temperatures that are NOT even close to being a threat to anyone.

Thanks,
Tony


79. weatherboyfsu
6:44 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hello people.........Hope everyone is having a good day........As far as the subject of global warming goes....theres only one thing that i can tell you is that here in orlando it appears to me that the globe is warming because its warming here TODAY, I dont know what its doing where you are..........read the bold again.......How old is the earth, maybe billions of years old........how many years have we been keeping records on the climate........maybe 100 years........lets see....100 years out of billions........hmmmmm....can we make a conclusion from that..........The answer is NO......We humans give ourselves way too much credit. One volcanic explosion more than covers all the pollution that man has put into the atmosphere. MAN only wishes that he could affect the atmosphere.......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
78. HENSCOLASC
1:32 PM EST on January 10, 2006
FtWalton - I wholehartedly agree, I do not see a "global warming crisis" everyone is quoting studies using miniscule data. If you want to do a more comprehensive study, you need to go back MILLIONS of years, not just 50-100. By the way, I saw that a Stamford computer model showed that if they increased the amount of forest in north america, that would contribute to global warming, because the trees would absorb the sun's energy, whereas the deserts reflect the heat. It just goes to show you that you can always find some kook group that will support whatever view you have. That just proves to me that human's cause of global warming is grossly inconclusive. It sounds like a bunch of "chicken littles".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
77. Cregnebaa
6:34 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hear Hear Sam
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
76. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
5:44 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Forgive me for butting in, but in all due respect, how can we say with /any/ certitude that the world is warming because of humans? We're only just leaving a mini ice age. The average temperature of the world is still near the low end of the spectrum. Yes, the world is warming. But save for a brief period of relative stability near the low end of temperature extremes for the last 10,000 years, the world's average temperature fluctuates wildly, sometimes hitting both extremes within a century of each other.

We are just exiting a mini-ice age. In the time period between 1250ish to 1850ish the world was considerably colder than it has been for the most of the time humans have had a civilization. And while, yes, the world has been warming at a rate of a degree or two a century, that really is not anywhere near as drastic a change as the onset of the mini-ice age where we dropped 4 degrees in a decade, nor as bad as the second severe drop in the early 1700's that brought the average down by a further 5 degrees also in a decade's time.

We have not yet returned to the temperatures enjoyed by our ancestors a scant 1000 years ago. England used to grow grapes that made wines that rivaled France. It is still far too cold today for that to occur.

The main reason I can not see a crisis in "global warming" is that most of these variations in temperature occurred /before/ the Industrial Revolution, including the warmest point in the time period I am referencing.

Personally, while I do not discount out of hand the possibility of some of the increase being man-made, I believe we are mainly watching the world come out of the deep freeze it has been in for most of the last millenium. While I agree there are very good reasons to cut back on the use fossil fuels and other pollutants, I don't believe we need to sully that fight with unprovable science. Let the fact that we are damaging our own health and the resources we need for the future speak for itself.

(Soap box mode: off)

Sam
Member Since: January 9, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
75. Cregnebaa
5:17 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Chaser, to quote
ďIn reality, most supporters believe that the Kyoto treaty was a good thing and well intended to help ALL Countries involved, when in reality it was proposed by many as a way to bring down our Country economically.í

That is truly an alarmist and paranoid view.

Come on itís not the world against America, that just what your mediaís propaganda is making the US citizens believe, to help support your governments aggressive foreign policy.

The truth is a strong economic US means less goods from China. Which is always a good thing as the States is lot more more energy efficient than the Chinese.

Enough politics!

There is no evidence to say we are helping global warming, but this doesnít mean were are not, itís always best to keep an open mind.

My apologies Chaser it seems everyone is picking on you, although I do agree with you in the end result:

Even if we are warming the planet it probably wonít matter in the long term, as the climates will cool again, Iím sure the earth has preventive measures controlling itís climate from extremes, or it would not have survived this long! (history can tell you a lot about the future).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
74. weatherguy03
5:24 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Fact #1..Global warming exists..
Fact #2..We really dont know the effects of global warming on hurricane intensity just yet..One study isnt going to prove to me yes or no on this subject. Could this be another peak in hurricane intensity or will this past season be just the beginning??..We dont know the answers to this yet..

But lets not discount global warming!!!..Its a fact and we need to do the right things now to slow this process down so that our children will have a great place to live in.
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 590 Comments: 29698
72. hurricanechaser
3:54 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey guys,

This debate is truly pointless, because everyone will simply perceive it as they wish regardless of their individual motivations. In most cases, the issue is all about ones perception rather than a review of the evidence in a serious and objective manner.

It is most unfortunate that this is the prevalent atmosphere where the focus is getting distorted. Ironically, it is an undeniable reality that Global warming can NEVER be directly attributed to any perceived human activities.

Therefore, the proponents of human induced causes will NEVER be able to determine as to what extent, if any was influenced by human activities.

I for one am simply tired of discussing this issue with those who choose to accept assumptions that have absolutely NO substance whatsoever, when there is a multitude of factual evidence of natural climate cycles that have and will continue to influence our Global temperatures.

Please read the study in the link I provided earlier if you can be objective. If not, believe what you wish. The fact is that the Truth whatever it may be, will not suddenly change regardless of anyones opinion. Unfortunately, none of us will be around until this warm phase of natural climate variability reverses itself and I can say, I tried to tell you.:)

I hope everyone has a good day.:)

Thanks,
Tony


71. TampaSteve
3:23 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
The current long-term warming trend started long before the industrial revolution...maybe it's caused by cow farts???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
70. michalp
2:38 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Just like there is no definite proof that humans are causing global warming, there is also no proof that humans aren't causing global warming.
If you believe the ice core studies(that we can accurately measure past co2 levels), then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly linked to the temperature(though we don't know which if any is the cause). CO2 levels are increasing and at the very least it's a cause for concern.
Why are CO2 levels rising?
More cars, factories, power plants?
Less trees, and species?
Should we try to do something about it, while florida is still above water?
Perhaps the Europeans just wanted to hurt us economically, but they have been more environmental for a long time. I trully doubt it could have hurt us very badly. Given all the stuff we do know, I don't think it's just political. There are genuine concerns.
I for one do not welcome the coal plant now being built next to my city.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
69. TPaul
2:27 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
I will agree, Global Warming exists, and that man has some impact on global climate, to what extent I think is what is still up in the air. But here is a point which I think nobody gets, at this point no matter to what extent man has impacted it, it is unlikely that man can stop it from progressing. Even if we stopped all green house gas output today it is unlikely we would see any change in human impact on global warming for decades if not up to a century. So we are going to just have to learn to live with it until it goes back the other way then we will have to live with global cooling, but that probably not going to be in our lifetimes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
66. hurricanechaser
10:50 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
THE TRUTH ABOUT HURRICANES AND HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING ASSUMPTIONS:

Link
65. hurricanechaser
10:46 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey everyone,

Here is a very interesting research study that clearly disputes the claim that hurricane intensity and/or frequency will increase as a result of Global warming attributed to human activities, during the next century.

All of the media attention that spurred this assumption that has been accepted as a predictive reality is indeed flawed and proven to be so as noted in this study based upon reality rather than fiction.

Moreover, this study was conducted by the real experts in hurricane behavior and how climate changes influence their intensification amongst other characteristics. Therefore, I will simply post the link for anyone who may possibly believe that hurricane intensity will dramatically increase during the succeeding century as a result of Global warming.

I hope everyone has a great night and a good day as well.:)

Your friend,
Tony


64. hurricanechaser
10:09 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Michalp,

I will gladly respond to the comments referencing my post.


"That being said I am skeptical of the myriad of global warming claims, but simply dismissing them as politically motivated is naive. Most people would have little to gain if we stopped burning stuff(oil etc...)."

Please show me anywhere that I simply dismiss the claims of Global warming as ONLY being politically motivated? In reality, I believe most proponents do have political motivations, while the rest are most likely influenced by the huge propaganda machine that fuels this debate.

That being said, I am by no means inditing those who honestly accept such unsubstantiated claims for most are probably truly concerned about the consequences of the effects of the human induced global warming guess, being suggested by the alarmists. However, that doesn't dismiss the fact that the TRUTH cannot and will not change regardless of my opinion or anyone else's for that matter.

As a result, we are left to hopefully analyze the issue objectively and come to the most logical conclusion based upon proven factual evidence, rather than the unsubstantiated and outrageous claims of imminent Global catastrophe resulting from the release of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is very little doubt that those supportive of this unfounded human induced global warming guess, do have much to gain in contrast to your naive assertion to the contrary.

In reality, most supporters believe that the Kyoto treaty was a good thing and well intended to help ALL Countries involved, when in reality it was proposed by many as a way to bring down our Country economically.

There are other obvious reasons rooted in liberal activist causes for supporting this climatic guess, but I don't desire to make this climate issue into a politicized debate which seems to always occur unfortunately.

Thanks,
Tony


63. hurricanechaser
7:57 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
A REBUTTAL TO THE ABSURD STATEMENTS REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING.


Hey Snowboy,

First of all, I will begin by saying that I respect your opinions as well. On the other hand, I will respond to your post from a different perspective. I will simply address the comments you've made and ask you to PROVE them to me if you can.

Comment number one:

"Human activity is adding methane, CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in huge amounts and this is causing more of the sun's energy to be retained in the system.

My Question:

How do you know that more of the sun's energy is being retained in the system as you put it, as a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions?

Secondly, it is important that people understand that the release of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution contain a maximum of 98% water vapor. Therefore, only 2% of this release can even be considered a man made contribution.

Comment number two:

"We WILL see changes in global climate as a result of the greenhouse gases we are putting up there."

My Response:

You make a definite statement claiming that we "WILL" see climate change as a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions. This begs the question, how can you make such a definite statement? Naturally, you can make any statement you like of course, but you have absolutely no irrefutable evidence to back up your claim.

Comment number three:

"If you look at a graph of global temps vs. time then it has been a steady climb since the start of the industrial age (when we started with the big-time emissions of greenhouse gases), except for a 30-year downward trend that coincided with the nuclear testing. If not for the nuclear testing, global warming would have been considerably further advanced today."

My response:

Honestly, I have to respectfully say that this is one of the most unbelievable excuses to try and disregard Natural Climate variability in an attempt to connect it directly to human induced greenhouse gas emissions.

First of all, you make a definite statement that global warming would have been further advanced today without nuclear testing. How can you prove it? Simple answer, you can't and haven't, nor even could for that matter.

Secondly, you began your statement referencing global warming trends starting with the beginning of the industrial revolution, while either blatantly or unintentionally ignoring the fact that this current warming phase was initiated well before that time.

It is also important to understand that the study of Climatology is generally defined as being based upon a period greater than 30 years. It is an undeniable fact that we all can agree on, that the Earth is currently in a warming phase. (which I strongly contend is directly related to natural climatological trends). However, NO ONE can prove that this current minimal (most people don't realize that)increase in Global temperatures is neither unusual nor should be unexpected.

If the study of climatology is correct (based upon proven historical fact rather than assumptions), we have had many alternating cycles of these NATURAL fluctuations in climate variability. Moreover, this current warm phase that began before we released ANY greenhouse gas emissions, is not even remotely close to being the warmest ever documented scientifically.

Therefore, I find it completely naive that proponents of human induced global warming can dismiss factual evidence and simple logic rooted in these undeniable truths and substitute it for a completely unsubstantiated, unprovable, and distorted belief that human activities are causing these cycles.

Then again, most political debates originate from one side or the other creating controversy by making claims that can't be proven. I wouldn't use the political analogy if this completely scientific study that began in the early 1980's, wasn't being hijacked by radical liberal groups throughout the world in hopes of advancing their own political agenda.

Sadly, we have all these people with no experience in academically studying this issue from a completely objective position, making statements of fact, that are nothing more than hypothetical guesses at best. This is in contrast to the long hours I've devoted to this specific issue month after month for a period exceeding 10 years.

I'm not saying that I am more qualified to give an opinion. On the other hand, my statements are backed up by undeniable factual evidence rather than uninformed speculation. I for one am not comfortable making definite statements when there is such an overwhelming probability I could be mistaken in my assertions.

Your most absurd comment:

"As for the future, I am very concerned. If we take the "Don't worry, be happy" approach which you seem to be championing Chaser, then the future will be bleak indeed. The good thing about the debate is that each passing year provides additional data to help people's understanding. As the USA suffers ever more extreme and damaging weather, you'll as a country hopefully wake up and join the rest of the 1st world community in working on trying to counteract what is happening."

My response:

I specifically chose to characterize the heading for this response highlighting the absurdity of your last paragraph. First of all, you are making an unfounded personal judgment on my attitude which has no merit whatsoever. Secondly, I have never once said that I didn't think it was wise to search for cleaner and more supposedly environmentally safe forms of energy, if possible without causing far worse unexpected consequences as a result.

No offensive intended, but it is people in this world (not saying you specifically) who choose to exploit natural disasters and human tragedy in an attempt to attribute its causes to completely unsubstantiated guesses, that are displaying a complete lack of compassion toward those who are unfortunate enough to endure these calamities.

Once again, I will have to refer to proven fact to correct your erroneous statement that we as a Country need to wake up and join the first world to counteract what is happening as the "USA suffers ever more extreme and damaging weather".

This is typical of human induced Global warming proponents who build straw men only to intentionally tear them down. In other words, no one can dispute that we are indeed getting more destructive storms. However, this is to be expected because more people and property are now located in harms way. If there were no people or no property in the path of these natural forms of violent weather, then there would be very little to destroy.

Naturally, we will continue to see increases in destructive storms as has been the case with more recent moderate (category two)hurricanes like Frances and Isabel for example that rank as two of our Nations most costly natural disasters.

In contrast, the far more intense hurricanes like the great Labor day storm of 1935 and Camille of 1969, who were each powerful category fives as well as the two most intense hurricanes to ever affect our shores, didn't even achieve damage totals remotely close to those mentioned above. That's not because they weren't extremely devastating storms, but simply that there was less population in these areas in decades long ago.

Therefore, we will continue to see these either naive or intentional proponents of human induced global warming blaming the natural cycle of climate variability that will continue to enhance global temperatures for another couple of centuries, on man made activities.

Although their case is unprovable at best, the factual evidence of natural global warming will be undeniable to the naive and uneducated in this area of academia. Consequently, they will be able to distort the obvious and frame the natural as being caused by unnatural effects related to man made influences.

Furthermore, they will also be able to point to greater devastation caused by all these natural disasters (a result of more people populating our Earth in greater areas of impending danger)and convince most people that these storms are far more powerful than they've ever been in history.

In reality, these disasters could honestly be largely attributed to man made actions. The same can't be said of the increase in global temperatures resulting from natural climate variability.

I will conclude by saying that I realize that I cannot compete with God and alter these factual cycles of climate variability. Therefore, I will continue to study this issue without a political agenda and with a completely objective review of the facts.

It is a shame the same can't be said of most who ascribe to the Hollywood type scenarios of gloom and doom that WILL never actually occur, because the Earth does have the ability to keep its equilibrium by these natural functions of climate variability.

In short, it is the height of arrogance to think we as a human race the power to make such dramatic changes to the Earths climate. There is only ONE who could actually do that and HE alone knows the absolute Truth, while the rest of us debate issues that pale in comparison to far greater concerns in our world today that will ultimately have far more catastrophic effects on future generations.

Thanks,
Tony


62. ProgressivePulse
6:45 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
I lived there for 24 years and never remember a day in January that was anywhere close to 50.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
61. ProgressivePulse
6:36 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
Usually means snow storms in Alaska, Canada. Creates the big storms for the Midwest, Great Lakes area. My Father lives in the Great Lakes area, small lakes froze for about a month in the deep freeze up there. All are exposed now, rare for January. Suppose to be close to the 50's mid week. Not below freezing for the next 10 days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
60. Trouper415
6:23 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
Going to be lots more flooding in the northwest. With all of these storms hitting the west coast this year, all of which have been potent, in a normal year where do these storms normally go? Or is it the jet stream is normally further north or south so all of this moisture isnt getting picked up over the Pacific?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
59. ProgressivePulse
6:15 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
anyway michalp that is an entirely different subject then limiting natures cleansing abilities.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
58. ProgressivePulse
6:09 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
The thought that humans can, and are trying to, "CONTROL" the enviornment is ludicrous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
57. ProgressivePulse
6:06 AM GMT on January 10, 2006
Not repaired but going the other way I should say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 107 - 57

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
72 °F
Scattered Clouds