WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

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

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

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

Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

FIRST ONE!!!
Yay, go you.

TC Claire has made landfall in Australia.
that Alberto even has a 30% chance of forming in January is mind-boggling.....

thanks Dr. Masters as always for your information.
What was Claire's landfall strength???
Dr. Masters - Is it possible that because the Pacific Ocean has a much larger amount of water in it than the Atlantic Ocean that the global warming thus far has simply affected it less? Sort of the same idea as why my daughter can swim in our little kiddie pool in May, but not in our big pool until June?

We know that the Atlantic temperatures have risen by several degrees in the last century, has the same thing happened in the Pacific? I would think that if the Pacific has also risen by 3 degrees C and there has been no increase in tropical storms, then we could conclude that global warming has not caused the increase in the number of storms in the Atlantic. However if the Pacific has not yet warmed up the same amount due to the volume of water involved, then we can't make the same conclusion.
Thank you Dr. Masters, great info!
Skypony, thanks for the link. Here's another one, but with dial-up it loads real slowly.
Long time no posting here, have a good day all!
NO WAY!!! I refused to plot and watch for Hurricanes and Tropical Storms in January...Alberto !!! BOO!!!
Dr Masters,
Great Information, Thank you so much for keeping this up for your devoted Fan Base!!! I really look forward to reading all of your updates and the comments that follow......
Gamma
Clare was equivalent to our Category 2 I think.

Is there really an off-season anymore? Remember we are about 2 months away from the low point (early March) when the North Atlantic is at its coldest!
I think the 2 main things that the country can learn from this Hurricane season is Expect the Unexpected and Prepare for the Worst. Hopefully next season more will adhere to those standards and take a little of the burden off of FEMA.
Sorry for the double post, I didn't see that it posted in the last blog :-)
I'm still skeptical as to weather all those greek storms would have been detected as tropical storms. They may have been simply seen as intense storms.

After all they do not share alot of the characteristics of tropical storms. That whole warm water thing. Also if the ocean is warmer and we are still getting tropical storms, wouldn't that imply that the air is colder? Wouldn't colder air but warmer oceans lead to more hurricanes? It's all about instability.
The greek storms had most of it's weather near it's center when it was idenified as tropical. In non tropical storms the weather is away from the center. The other thing is the air would have been more warmer and more humid than compared to the atmosphere out side of the storm. Yes I think ships in the past would been able to identify tropical systems in the past if they were around for more than a few days
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the difference between intense storms and Tropical Cyclones is the warm core versus the cold core of typical lows.
The East pacific has been lacking lately.
16. dcw
The EPAC hasn't been that inactive, it's just that no one cares while the atlantic is doing this insanity.

The primary difference bewteen an extratropical low and a tropical one is the deep, warm core, yes.

Claire made landfall just below our "hurricane" strength - 60kt (70mph)

That low shown by the models has developed in the NE atlantic, perhaps we'll be tracking Alberto soon?
Hey everyone,

In reviewing this data myself prior to writing my own blogs on this subject, I also noticed the same statistical correlations as noted in Dr. Masters blog. the thing that was most apparent to me is that No one can really no for sure exactly how many storms were actually missed at any point prior to satellite detection which didn't begin before 1960. This is important because the natural climate variability known as the AMO which is a multidecadal cyclic mechanism that has been proven to have the greatest affect on both Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity was in the previous warm phase from 1926 through 1969. Therefore, they leaves the period of 1926 through 1944 without any reconnaissance flights, no land based radar observations, and most important of all, no satellite detection ability. The period from 1944 through 1960 would no doubt been a little better at tropical cyclone detection except that those flights weren't and still aren't flown unless there is a possible area of concern located west of about 55-60 degrees longitude. Therefore, any scientific study making an assumption that only one or two tropical cyclones at most would've been missed is no more than speculation. If there had indeed been a season like 2005 during the period of 1926 through 1960, it is safe to assume that many storms wouldn't have even been detected without satellites such as Delta, Epsilon, Vince, and Zeta to name a few. Moreover, even these more hybrid type cyclones would've most likely been classified as subtropical; rather extratropical cyclones between the 1960 through 1969 period where the study of satellite imagery was rather poor at the time. It is also important to realize that we have had numerous classified storms during the past two decades that were considered subtropical rather than purely tropical and thus never were named and not added to the seasonal storm totals. The NHC didn't begin naming these systems until around 2000. These are just a few of the obvious examples as to why determining a fair and reasonable comparison with the last warm phase of the AMO cycle and the new that began in 1995 and has continued through this past season is not completely reliable and has a fairly large degree of error.

A good example of this disparity is that a careful study of the hyperactive 1933 season which consists of a recorded 21 named storms is truly remarkable at a time there was far less ship traffic, no reconnaissance flights, no satellite imagery, no land based radars, and a less developed population in areas that may have ultimately been impacted. If we look at the 1933 storm tracks, one thing truly stands out, which is the absence of storms developing east of 50 degrees longitude where about 5 storms from this past season actually never crossed. Moreover, these storms were the late season variety that has helped cushion the 2005 totals which if present during the 1933 season would've gone completely undetected. Even if a ship ran into the storm, it is most likely that such a storm so late in the season would've been considered as non tropical in nature. This doesn't even take into account, another couple of storms most likely were missed even in areas west of 60 degrees longitude. Consequently, it is not impossible that the 1933 season could have had storm totals practically reaching those of this remarkable season. However, most people don't take all of the aforementioned into account when making such comparisons nor do they realize that technological advances and the increased understanding of tropical cyclones are identifying systems that otherwise would've been dismissed tropically speaking.

Now, lets consider that the 1950 hurricane season STILL holds the record for most major hurricanes during one season and it is conceivable that some storms were likely missed during this season as well with satellite observations which would've also missed storms in the east central Atlantic like the five during the latter part of the 2005 season. Moreover, it stands to also reason that some of these storms could have been underestimated in intensity as well since any possible storms identified east of 60 degrees longitude wouldn't have been assessed by reconnaissance flights and had to be detected by ships unfortunate enough to cross their path. Therefore, it's a pretty safe bet that the ACE Index was still much higher than the 2005 season which will never be known in reality. Here is something else to consider when anointing Hurricane Wilma has the most impressive storm in Atlantic Basin history, let's consider the great Labor Day hurricane of 1935. This was a very small and compact storm even smaller than Andrew of 1992. This storm passed over and through the Florida Keys at a time with no satellite technology, no land based radars to estimate intensity, no reconnaissance to get the most accurate winds and pressure possible, etc. Therefore, the 892 mb pressure was the lowest barometric pressure recorded on the sparsely populated keys where there were no more than 400 people in its direct path. This was a pressure reading from only one barometer during the storm. This a mention of one of the survivors who watched his barometer fall as he would relay the readings to those huddled with him in a building. Unfortunately, he threw the barometer into the howling wind when it got down to 26.00 inches of mercury and was still falling. Since the barometer was lost, this report couldn't be considered official. Once again, it is quite conceivable that this incredible storm may still have reached an intensity greater than Wilma from this past season. This doesn't even account for the fact that it is probable that many other very intense hurricanes weren't classified to the intensity they truly achieved certainly prior to 1944. Therefore, it is most important to keep all of this in mind when discussing the incredible 2005 season and all of its remarkable records. Moreover, this is important background information to keep in mind when comparing AMO cycles as well.

It is naive to honestly accept the belief that there weren't more storms missed than "only a few" that Dr. Masters notes based upon scientific assumptions. Even more astonishing is this assumption by Dr. Masters in this blog when he states, "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." Naturally, I will have to respectfully disagree with that assessment for obvious reasons noted above. Even if we were to accept Dr. Masters belief that all of the Greek storms were long lasting enough to somehow been detected by shipping, how would they have know these relatively weak storms would've been classified as tropical systems. It seems far more likely that all if not most would've been simply considered strong non tropical cyclones. This doesn't even take into account hurricane Vince that was the first hurricane ever recorded so far north and east in the Atlantic. In addition, Vince was an extremely small storm and didn't maintain impressive strength for too long before it moved into Spain as a tropical depression. Who really thinks that this storm would've been considered as a tropical storm with satellite imagery?

That assumption pales in comparison to his next statement that it is unlikely that ANY storms were missed after 1960 with satellite imagery. First o all, we know that satellite intensity estimates have greatly increased with our advanced understanding and technology of the past decade or so. Furthermore, it is highly likely that MANY storms would NOT have been classified as purely tropical systems from 1960-1969. Keep in mind, it is an indisputable fact that many classified subtropical storms have developed that I personally tracked prior to the 200 season that were never named and thus not added to the seasonal totals. This is just another reason why the advanced technology, increased understanding, and the classification of storms that would otherwise not have been accounted for prior to the past decade when this new warm phase of the AMO cycle is distorting the record books. Unfortunately, most don't have the background or have studied this reality to understand that there isn't as great a disparity in the comparable AMO cycles as one might think based on first impression looking at the numbers.

I want to acknowledge that I believe the current AMO cycle is a little more intense than the previous one so far. Moreover, I also want to express my belief that we are indeed in a warm phase of natural climate variability that is causing increased warming in various regions around the globe known as Global warming. However, it is unfortunate that so many want to ascribe this natural cyclic climate change to human activities. Those with a political agenda and all the money being wasted on the propaganda machines pushing it have cleverly got people into the mindset that Global warming is defined as any increased warming of the globe cause by human activities. If people would step back and think logically for a second that maybe just maybe these minimal increases in Global temperatures could be the natural function of long term climate variability which is provable and has occurred many times throughout the Earth's history. Why can't people realize that the so called human induced effects of Global warming are absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to ever be determined. Simply put, no one will ever know for certain if this increased global warming would have been any different without the releases of greenhouse gases by humans. It is important that people understand that the concept of human induced Global warming doesn't have enough merit to even be considered as a theory by scientific standards. On the hand, this won't stop the majority of those with an obvious political agenda in both the scientific community and in the media from continuing to blame this natural climate variability on human activities and sadly, most are naive enough to accept it. Therefore, it want be until this climate variability reverses itself with noticeable global cooling before the inhabitants living here a couple of centuries from now will realize that there ancestors were incorrect about human induced global warming. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if this future Global cooling isn't then blamed on some sort of human activity.

At its most basic level, we all can understand how climate variability works through the changes in our seasons in a specific Hemisphere. We are currently in a much cooler phase of natural climate variability know as Winter which will reverse itself in a few months with a much warmer phase of this cycle know as Spring and Summer. The definition of climate in itself is just the average of weather observations over a period of time.

In short, I can confidently say that Global warming is not and cannot ever be attributed to human activities because it is undeniably unprovable at best. This stands in stark contrast to the well observed centuries old natural functions of climate variability. Secondly, the same authors Dr. Masters referred to in his blog have most recently completed a study stating unequivocally that Tropical cyclone frequency and activity in the Atlantic Basin is not attributable to any human induced Global warming.

I will get you all the link to this important study which isn't being reported in the media while the 2004 study that inspired this look into that suggestion is the one that has been consistently decimated and highlighted as factual evidence of human induced causes for Global warming and consequently the more active hurricane seasons since 1995.

I will conclude this objective and logical view of Global warming and its effects on hurricane frequency and intensity because there is so much more evidence that rebuts any reasonable suggestion of this absurd concept and I don't have the time to share all of it at this time.

It's a shame that the facts have to be so distorted when disseminated to a public likely to believe everything they hear from so called experts and what they see reported as fact in the media. My own personal views are a result of my own personal decade long study into this idea of human induced global warming. It is important to note, I began my quest for the truth believing what I heard most reported which was global warming is caused by green house gas emissions. At least, I can go to bed knowing I am not being brain washed anymore and objectively come to my own conclusions based upon both scientific evidence, the lack thereof, and simple logic.

Thanks for reading this very lengthy post and I hope everyone has a great night.:)

Your friend,
Tony



nice post tony you stil hold the record LOL
hurricanechaser,
I have been reading your posts with some interest for a bit. I have one thing to add to your comment above: Everything I have read suggests we are actually in a very cold point in the earth's climate cycles. The graphs I have seen of what the ice cores say the earth's average temperature was for the last several tens of thousands of years imply that the Earth was /much/ warmer than present day several times, all of which were before our ability to effect such changes.

All in all, while this season was extremely bad, I don't see how we can /possibly/ say global warming caused by humans influenced it.

I wish I had more time right now to expand on this.... I have to go run some errands before work.
hey theboldman hurricanechaser and ever you no what i want to do right now to this web sit? Link


i want to give them a lol
Well Chaser that's a long post. While I greatly respect your abilities and experience in the field of meteorology, your post is more about climatology and I have to say I see things quite a bit differently.

The earth, its atmosphere and oceans together are a closed system which is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. 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. If you add energy to a dynamic system, then the equilibrium will shift in response to the added energy.

We WILL see changes in global climate as a result of the greenhouse gases we are putting up there. I do agree though that we will not be able to say definitively that a certain effect (say a particularly severe storm, or an especially long and extreme hurricane season) is due to global climate change, but we should be aware that it is ever more POSSIBLE and we should plan prudently and accordingly (ie. we should conserve energy where it can be achieved with reasonable effort, and we should look for other energy sources).

Note that one factor overlooked by most climatologists is the effect of above ground nuclear testing from the 1940s through 1970s. This threw huge clouds of radioactive ash into the atmosphere, and cooled the earth's climate significantly. 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.

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.
why is that david
Good day everyone. Great info there Dr. Jeff masters and a nice post by you chaser. As for the tunnel idea, thats sounds very nice nuetralizing these hurricanes and generating electricity for millions of people. HOWEVER! if this were ever possible, the consequences on the ecological wellbeing of the oceans creatures and the warmth the atlantic ocean brings to north america and europe in the summer would totally be abbliverated. Interesting idea but that would have monster consecuences as well altering the globes climate.

Giants in 06
theboldman mail for you it will tell you why
hey trouper you said you wre north od san francisco im in sacramento were abouts are you
theboldman mail for you
KRWZ mail for you
As an exercise in theoretical physics, the tunnel is quite elegant. As a real world solution to the problems of hurricanes in the USA, it is just not doable. The tunnel would create huge impacts (on climate, on aquatic and terrestrial ecological systems, and on people) on a global scale. It would not be possible to predict the impacts beforehand.

Why not try to cure the illness rather than the symptoms? Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop alternative (to carbon based) energy sources, and plant LOTS of trees...

First off, very nice post Snowboy.

Boldman, Marin county. across the golden gate bridge from SF. Hows it going Boldman and 88889?

As for the tunnel idea. I like ideas like that which are almost too extreme to comprehend. How big do you think those tunnels would have to be? About the size of california? Another question I have for anyone who knows is: Why wouldnt that upwelling due to the pressure difference occur naturally in the ocean? Does it take a pressure difference that is immediate and not gradual as the ocean is? I didnt see you said you could turn the tunnel on and off, so my point about altering the globes climate may have been a bit rushed. However, not to disagree just for the enjoyment of disagreeing, but altering something like a hurricane which holds enough power to power the U.S. for 6 months, and altering that fuel source...hehehe. Again, fun to think about.
thanks Trouper - they'd need to be bloody big tunnels...
Some impressive pictures of the before and after effects that hurricane Katrina caused to the area she struck.

http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/katrina/photo-comparisons/chandeleur.html
LoL Cyclone Buster, I agree with Trouper, "the concequences". Just like all the miracle drugs on the market, you solve one problem but there are 10 side effects that are worse than the original problem. Mother nature is nothing to be tampered with, who knows all the benifit's of Hurricanes, I am sure there are many.
Yes Progressive, one of them is the natural equillibrium of the planet (homeostasis). Hurricanes are around to keep the balance in the planet's climate. There are many benefits along with the obvious drawbacks.
For sure Atmos, I have serious issues with those that try to control the enviornment. I would be on the frontlines in defense if anything of the sort were to spring into action.
hey guys, what do you all think about the recent study(cant remember who) about the Gulf Stream slowing down in the last thirty years, do ya'll think its possibly a feature of the AMO, or something else? If it happens not to be just a feature of the AMO I propose the hypothesis that it has been helping along some of the tropical excesses we have seen in the last few years. Possibly with the gulf stream not being as efficient at removing heat, it has helped with keeping SST's at amazingly high levels.
Matilda....thank you for your input...I certainly wouldn't want to have been you on the 7th floor of a hi-rise ..no more than you would've wanted to be here ar my house that day.....ok......a storm from the East ? you will get out?
Alberto on Wedensday.
: ProgressivePulse the A storm on web how do you no that?
Avlos, I think that this is just a cycle. We just broke a record that was set in the 50's. There were many active seasons to date and there were many non-active seasons. Just a pattern, go get some extra batteries and hurricane supplies and ride it out.
Just a hunch KRWZ is all, looking at cloud patterns.
, looking at cloud patterns?
How are you KRWZ by the way? Long time no see.
ProgressivePulse i am doing vary good thanks for asking
Good to hear you are doing well, yeah I like to stare at the clouds around a storm. Especially the last few, since we have no concrete background. Cloud patterns tell alot about what is or is not going to happen.
ProgressivePulse i got to get some sleep now so good night and drop me a e mail
Night KRWZ!
Matilda...tried to send a link through.....storm damage west vs east
progressive, the effects of global warming can take existing cycles (that go up and down) such as the AMO and turn them into upward spirals (where you still have ups and downs but the overall trend is ever higher)...
snowboy, that might be true. But for the people such as chaser who have basically dismissed the fact of human induced global warming and say these trends are strictly due to planitary cycles...Graphs that show hurricane activity for instance over the last 100 years...The graphs clearly show active periods and less active periods. However, it seems as if the active periods are getting more active while the less active periods are not changing or getting even more active through each cycle. And its true, as snowboy sayd, as we add c02 into our atmosphere, its not like the earth can absorb 100% of it. Even if concentration of c02 levels is rising very slowly, it STILL adds a little bit, thus the increase in temperatures etc.
Hey 88889 and anyone else who wants to see the possible A storm forming.

http://www.weather.com/maps/geography/oceans/atlanticoceansatellite_large.html

Click 'show map in motion' to see it in the works. Looks pretty similar to the greek letter storms, and its a relatively low lattitude as well. It is January lol.
To be very vague, "The more crap the canes have to clean up, the bigger they get".
You see it too eyy Trouper?
The claim that humans can't change the environment is ludicrous. First of all look at the ozone layer. This huge change in the atmosphere was entirely man made. Man has waged war on environment being the first species that changes the environment to suit us(agriculture). That being said I am skeptical of the myriad of global warming claims, but simply dissmissing them as politicaly motivated is naiive. Most people would have little to gain if we stopped burning stuff(oil etc...). The facts are simple, it is unknown how much humans have contributed to global warming and the planet is getting warmer. CO2 concentrations are increasing quickly.

In fact in a previous entry Dr Masters said that the total temperature of the earth isn't changing. The bottom layer of the atmosphere is getting warmer while the stratosphere is getting cooler. Since the stratosphere is gains most of it's heat from radiation, loosing quite a bit of ozone could be reponsible for it's cooling(and for more sun reaching the surface).

Missing one thing though, connection to the upper trough. Have to see if that forms tomorrow, I went on a hunch. Pressure dropping steadily, formation growing more symetrical and nearing the percieved center.
Michalp, the ozone was repaired by limiting the output of our waste not limiting mother nature.
Not repaired but going the other way I should say.
The thought that humans can, and are trying to, "CONTROL" the enviornment is ludicrous.
anyway michalp that is an entirely different subject then limiting natures cleansing abilities.
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?
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.
I lived there for 24 years and never remember a day in January that was anywhere close to 50.
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


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


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


THE TRUTH ABOUT HURRICANES AND HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING ASSUMPTIONS:

Link
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.
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.
The current long-term warming trend started long before the industrial revolution...maybe it's caused by cow farts???
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


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.
Chaser, to quote
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.

That is truly an alarmist and paranoid view.

Come on its not the world against America, that just what your medias 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 doesnt mean were are not, its 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 wont matter in the long term, as the climates will cool again, Im sure the earth has preventive measures controlling its climate from extremes, or it would not have survived this long! (history can tell you a lot about the future).
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
Hear Hear Sam
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".
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.......
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


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


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


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


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


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
Hello everyone... Just dropping in and out. Have a great day all!

Katie :-)
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.
Hey Katie,

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

Your friend,
Tony
Hey Tony! You too... Shoot me an email sometime :-)

See ya later :-)

Katie
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.
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?
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. :-)
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!!!
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




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???
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..
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


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


YW Tony!!!...And yes my Master degree is good enough!!!..LOL..But again, I am the least arrogant person you will ever meet!!..
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..
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


Yeah Tony wants to get rid of New Orleans..LOL..Another joke!!!
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


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.


No I believe it is fact and that is how I am going to state it, sorry you dont agree with that. I am not going to use "my best educated opinion", if you want to use that wording, go for it!!..
Hey Bob,

Where did I say to get rid of New Orleans?

I said NO areas in New Orleans or anywhere else should be rebuilt at tax payes expense in all areas that are in definate harms way, and comes from my personal concern for the loss of human life!

I have also stated numerous times if you were to read my comments clearly, without presumptions and see that I believe ANY and ALL areas that are truly safe without the need for huge fortified walls SHOULD be rebuilt!

Once again...incorrect on your so called facts.:)

Thanks,
Tony


So since we always have to read betwwen the lines with you...Are you saying..Now its a Yes or No question...Should New Orleans be rebuilt???..Yes or No Tony...Not some long winded around the question answer..Just Yes or No!!!..Man you would make a great politician..LOL..
Bob,

That's the type of arrogance that breeds hostility to the meteorological field.

A belief is not a fact. A fact is based on indisputable evidence.

Human induced global warming cannot and will not ever be considered a fact for reasons I've consistently mentioned.

Thanks,
Tony


For the record I agree with you Chaser that we should not be building in coastal areas - regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring.

We should leave large natural buffers around our oceans, rivers, lakes, and wetlands so that when the inevitable floods do occur these natural systems can buffer their effects and so that preventable damage to human structures (which are currently built in such areas) does not occur.
Well I guess I am not going to get my answer. Have a nice day Tony!!!
Bob,

Theres no reading betwen the lines for those who can actualy read what's clearly written..

I mean what I said. You tell me if New Orleans is salvagable based upon my previous post on the issue.

"I said NO areas in New Orleans or anywhere else should be rebuilt at tax payes expense in all areas that are in definate harms way, and comes from my personal concern for the loss of human life!"

"I have also stated numerous times if you were to read my comments clearly, without presumptions and see that I believe ANY and ALL areas that are truly safe without the need for huge fortified walls SHOULD be rebuilt!"

I just noticied an incorrect choice of words. If a home was destroyed and doesn't meet the standard I proposed, then absolutely NOT!

Simply put, DMS816 says there are such safe areas that are in New Orleans.

However, I am a poroponent of build at your own risk if these areas are and will once again be in danger of future loss.

The ony way to determine this is by a set standard in relation to the storm surge probabilities of definate danger for ALL areas on the coastline.

Thanks,
Tony


Bob,

It takes me awhile to type my response.:)
116. jeffB
Hey, Tony --

I'll try to respond to a couple of your points:

"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."

Fair enough, I don't see that accusation, perhaps it was in another thread.

"In regards to so called name calling, since when did the term, "Liberals" become a bad word."

It's only become a bad word in the mouths of those who use it as such. When it's used in combination with "radical", "activist", "agenda", "hijack", and such, the smell tends to rub off on it.

"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."

I confess that I'm getting a little exasperated here. We are, or should be, talking about SCIENCE, not politics. I do recognize that I've become part of the problem. :-)

"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."

I'm trying to avoid making any judgements or assumptions about you at all. All I can see is the statements you make here, and it's those that I was discussing.

Thanks for responding reasonably to my post.
Hey Snowboy,

I am in total agreement with the restoration of those natural buffers that you mentioned. The coastal build up in areas that shouldn't have been has caused catastrophic damage to our ecosystems and wetlands, etc. which appears to be a concern many have about global warming if I'm not mistaken?

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Jeff,

Fair enough...I can assure you I have tried to avoid politicizing this issue..that is my biggest frustration as well!:)

Thanks,
Tony
I just have two comment to make here. About rebuilding in coastal area. Why not rebuild? Charley did his destruction all the way across the sate, not just on the coast. There were problems all the way to Tampa from Jeanne and Frances. So I guess that we should never rebuild from any storm.

Also-I trust anything that Weatherguy03 has to say if it had not been for him this past season I think that there would have been alot more worried people on this site. As I have learned so much from him that I never knew or understood. Wish that there were more people like him on this site.
Hey Cyclonebuster,

You asked for my opinion and even said please just answer the question as to whether I thought it would work.

I also commended you for your idea.:)

However, I still don't believe it will work and if it was tried, I believe this will prove to be the case.

The key is that I personally don't believe it will work!

Ans NO your wrong because those two guys have a theory which is also unsubstantiated and has been attempted so it cannot YET if EVER be considered a fact.:)

It is amazing that so many people on these blogs can assert their personal opinions as being FACT. Anyone except Bob I suppose would tell you that working in the meteorological field is in the study of an inexact science where the more we learn, it seems the less we actually knew to begin with more or less of course.

You stated that it is a proven fact that hurricanes have to weaken in waters less than 80 degrees, I too thought the same until I saw Vince strengthen to hurricane status in 74 degree waters and do you recall Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta...all in waters below the 80 degree threshold?

Simply put, we all need to carefully choose our words before stating our opinions as FACT.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Raysfan,

That is another example of distorting the obvious intent of my comments.

Lets try this again, I specifically talked about the definite danger of construction along our immediate coastlines which is the best way to mitigate loss of human life and property.

I still don't think it's appropriate to spend tax payers money to irresponsibly rebuild in areas that will have to continuously be rebuilt with each subsequent storm.

I am in favor of build at your own risk in such areas!

I don't accept everything anyone says because I like them personally nor because they might be right the majority of the time. We all are wrong more often than not in the scientific community and it's the height of arrogance to think otherwise which is just my personal opinion.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Raysfan,

I spoke specifically of the storm surge threat, which is the greatest cause of devastation to life and property...can someone please read my comments thoroughly, before making incorrect statements that are already answered in the post you are referring to in your rebuttals.

Thanks,
Tony


Good afternoon all~ how far we've strayed from the subject.

Dr Masters~ way to stir up the class:)

Let's see~ I believe the question before us is ~ Is the recent warming of the tropics SST to blame for our late season storms? (not is global warming caused by humans) And though we don't have billions of years of data to look at there is the fact that during the previous warm phase of the AMO, we weren't having these late season storms. Perhaps a few were missed due to lack of radar, but not as many to equal the rise we are experiencing now. Wars were going on, trade & whatnot. As well as, plenty were documented in the west pacific during the same few years in question.

Not only is the late season storms out of place in our short stack of records. They have in ways defide the enviroment we thought reqired for a cane. Several other factors can be explored here. Since many have formed & intensifed over cooler SST & higher shear than required for cane formation, this becomes a subject to address. Many times these canes have thrived with high shear in the upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere shear was near or in an exceptable level. Perhaps there is something to our theory that the upperlevel shear somehow aids intensifcation when other factors are right. (like blowing across the top of a bottle or the laws behind Cyclonebuster's tunnels). Has there been changes in the shear patterns over our recorded time that coincide with these late season storms? or....

Then there's the need for earth to equal the energy forces. The ACE totals have been impressive lately, so perhaps that is a way to corrilate to the rising SST due to global warming. So much needs to be released a season & perhaps the years where enough wasn't released during season they occur in the off season. If you didn't notice~ this year during season we could go 3 weeks or more hampered by dust or shear. Conditions would rippen & it'd explode with multible storms or a storm of monstrous size. And our storms on average were shorter lived in days than last year or in the past. (Here's another place we should search for numbers & trends.) And did the storms on average dissapate sooner because they hit land as opposed to the years where they recurved & did loops out at sea for weeks on end?

I'd also like to pose the question ~Is SST causing a trend toward larger diameter storms? Is the average diameter of a hurricane larger than it was at the last warm part of AMO? Both Cameil & Labor day storms were small compared to the Fl (like comparing Floyd to the size of Florida)& larger size storms that have threatened. This leads to more damage~ like Frances (2) compared to Andrew (5)~ Frances was huge & moved as fast as a turtle, where Andrew was very small & quick, but still most intense. Could this be another possible result of nature releasing the extra ACE under constricting circumstances?

I leave more questions than answers. But I'm busy today, so i attempt to get ya'll back on track ~go searce the web, compare the info we have crunch, some number for the Master & attempt to find answers to the questions above, not bicker over if humans caused global warming.

Cyclonebuster~ With the govt currently attempting to pass laws to allow hurricane modification attempts, at a fleeting glance, your idea is more appeasing than chemicals, bombs & microwaves. Good luck~ i'd be interested in watching your progress, is your blog on this project of yours?
"tornado's may not even form in the mid west because of the cooler temperatures in the Gulf thus cooling the warm air migrating to the North out of the Gulf Of Mexico. Since the air is cooler not as much lift is created in the atmosphere for tornados to form. "

did it ever occur to you that the midwest NEEDS gulf moisture and thunderstorms? most of the rain that the midwest gets comes from these thunderstorms. tornadoes are a minor side effect compared to the benefit that the area gets from the rainfall. if you cut off the gulf, you would create a desert in the midwest.

fortunately, your scheme would never get built and would not work as intended if it were.
Good post skyepony......it does seem to me that as SST increase then the diameter of the storms each season has increased...and with the increase in the diameter we will see widespread damage each time one of these makes landfall.
Hey Snowboy,

I don't quite understand how you feel I didn't address your comments when you made this comment.

Posted By: snowboy at 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."


Posted By: hurricanechaser at 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 completely 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?":)

I will try to be clearer in this response. If there was any possible evidence that the SLIGHT increases in global temperatures could directly be influencing this warming phase, then naturally I would be concerned. However, I have spent countless hours over the past 10 years specifically researching this issue and have concluded at this point that we are in the proven cycles of climate variability and we ARE NOT having ANY effect on this NATURAL climate trend.

Therefore, I believe it is a REAL and proven concern that overpopulating our coastlines in the most vulnerable areas for storm surge is the biggest crisis we face relative to hurricane mitigation, not any perceived concept that man is having an affect on Global warming.

Moreover, history proves that large portions of our coastal areas were part of the ocean and it shouldn't be a surprise if that cycle repeats itself, and if so, we can't do anything except evacuate further inland when it actually becomes a reality in time, if it ever does occur again.

This shouldn't be blamed on human activities when there is absolutely NO evidence to substantiate a speculative claim.

But I have no doubts that if it does materialize, people will try blaming someone for it. It seems to be the American way now adays.

Thanks,
Tony


Cyclonebuster,

Where do you get such an absurd notion from my comments?

"So I guess you think airplanes don't fly because of Bernoulli's principle. Correct?"

Lets see, did I ever say airplanes don't fly? Don't think so.

Secondly, just because someones theory worked in accomplishing an astonishing feat certainly doesn't conclude that the same can or will be true with another.

Thanks,
Tony


Cyclonebuster,

Please remember you asked for my opinion which doesn't mean it can't work. Therefore, I want to say that I hope that it does and naturally wish you luck.:)

Thanks,
Tony
Hey Tony!!..I am still awaiting your Yes or No answer on New Orleans..But hey you'll make a good metorologist oneday, always hedging..LOL..They are teaching you well at that school of yours..LOL..

Thank you for the kind words Rays!!!..Your're the best!!!
"I still think we can do without the tornado's and still squeeze out the moisture we need in the midwest."

how exactly would you do that? do you have an equation that allows you to optimize the effect so that the gulf is exactly warm enough to provide moisture but not warm enough to support hurricanes and tornados?

you can't have one without the other. if you reduce tornados, you will reduce thunderstorms, which will reduce the total rainfall.
By the way, many scientists dispute the notion that Bernoulli's principle is what causes lift for airplanes.

for example,
this nasa.gov site
Hey Weatherdude and Skyepony,

I have quite a few rebuttals to those assumptions for which I simply don't have time to address right now.

Therefore, I will simply comment on just one.

One needs to research the historical record fully before stating that it appears we are getting larger hurricanes which simply isn't true.

The 1947 Florida hurricane if I remember correctly was HUGE! It had reported tropical storm force winds out to 400 miles from the center. We have never seen one like that in our lifetime. It was reported if I have the particular storm correct (I will have to go home and get you the exact storm and figures), that hurricane force winds alone extended up to 200 miles from the center and 100 mph winds like some 100 miles or so.

It is unfair to draw a comparison between two of the smallest intense storms like 1935 Labor Day storm and Camille with weaker large storms like Frances for example.

A more reasonable scenario would compare Andrew to Camille and Labor Day storm.

We have countless HUGE storms in the past such as the 1900 Galveston hurricane, 1926 Miami hurricane, 1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane, 1944 great Atlantic hurricane which was HUGE!, Hazel in 1954, Audrey in 1957, Helene in 1958, Donna was HUGE as well in 1960, Carla in 1961 was HUGE!, Betsy in 1965, Beulah in 1967, Agnes was large category one in 1972, Fredric in 1979, David was HUGE in 1079 as well, ALLEN gigantic in 1980, Gloria in 1985, Gilbert was HUGE in 1988, Hugo was HUGE in 1989 all before this new AMO cycle;e began in 1995.

These are just a list off the top of my head of hurricanes that were as large and many much larger than any we've sen during the past decade. Moreover, you Will notice that there is no correlation between AMO cycles and hurricane size as noted by the few listed above.

Is it possible for people to research the historical evidence before making such unfounded claims.

This is certainly one area I have devoted 21 years off my life to is studying hurricane history of individual storms.

The Great 1893 Sea Islands hurricane and the Great San Ciriaco hurricane of 1899 were also Huge as well and the list goes on and on,

In short, this theory has no factual basis and nothing unusual whatsoever.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Whoa, I go to "dinner" (I work nights) with my boyfriend and come back to an explosion.

Weatherboy, while I will grant that we do need to act on some of the "causes" of global warming for their own sake, I see no reason whatsoever to try to change the climate the world is trying to bring about on it's own. The world /will/ grow warmer. A lot warmer. History tells us it's been a lot warmer many, many times. What are we to do, try and stop the world from ever growing warmer again, just because we have chosen to live in marginal ecosystems that will not support the populations they currently have as the world moves back to the median temperature for the last 10,000 (which, I might add, is much cooler than the median temperature for the full length of time we can measure it)?

The nature of the world is to change. The last few thousand years have been remarkably stable temperature wise with swings of only a fee degrees +/-, which probably helped us to build the civilization we have. But we really shouldn't count on that to continue.

If man is an intelligent as we think we are, we need to learn how to adapt to what the world is becoming, not try to change what is probably in large part a natural cycle and possibly cause still more chaos. After all, just because this is the way the world "has always been" in your lifetime doesn't mean that is the way the world will remain.

In 1816 (at the tail end of the mini-ice age) it was so cold there was no summer. It snowed in June and July as far south as Virginia. Yet, a scant 50 years later we begin to see the weather patterns we are more accustomed to. What if they had been concerned with the Global Warming their factories and fireplaces was causing? What would the world look like today? Would it still be that cold, or would the world have warmed anyway? If man /had/ tried to stop the warming trend, what type of imbalance would we have created in the systems that fuel our weather? I don't think we understand what drives the weather well enough to try to change it just yet, or these late season hurricanes wouldn't be puzzling us by "breaking the rules" of when and where and under what conditions they formed.

You feel we should act now rather than wait and possibly allow the damage to be done. But what of the damage that could be caused by acting on incomplete data? What do we do if we try to stop what is a natural cycle and we break that cycle for a little while and push it too far the other way?

There were over 117 separate famines in France alone during the mini-ice age. Crops failed more than half the time. We are still /very/ dependent on cereals. They do extremely poorly under the conditions that prevailed during the mini-ice age. Our methods of raising livestock would not fair much better. Do we really want the certain knowledge that /we/ caused the current hardships (versus just the knowledge that we /might/ be making things a bit worse)?

I don't disagree with the goals of cleaner air and less fossil fuel dependence, but I do disagree that we need to stop the current warming trend.

Sam
Hey Bob,

I answered your question, but I guess it's over your head obviously.

Secondly, I will be working on my Masters when I go back to school if I ever do, thank you.

And I don't need my Masters to be a better meteorologist than you....if you disagree, I will gladly compete with you on any meteorolgical principle you like. I don't have to say I'm better than you like you do, I will simply be glad to prove it.

Let me know when you are ready.

You can't even get simple facts correct and I have serious doubts you have a meteorological degree. If so, I am glad I didn't go there. And even if you know more than I do overall in meteorology, I am most thankful I don't say I am somehow right simply because I have a degree. That's a poor excuse to try and prove a point. The fact is you couldn't rebutt my correction of your so called factual opinion.

In the meantime, I have more important things to do than try and PLAY a meteorologist on the blogs like you do.:)

I hope everyone has a good night.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Actually, hurricanechaser, we have had one before the current active cycle that was that huge. I was living in Ft Walton Beach, Fl when Gilbert was hitting the Yucatan and we were getting tropical storm force winds from him. He was a monster of a storm. He completely covered the Gulf of Mexico at one point.
So, again, what you are saying is that you know the proper temperature (or temperature difference) that allows for sufficient rainfall, but eliminates tornados...how exactly did you calculate this?
You can't even get simple facts correct and I have serious doubts you have a meteorological degree. If so, I am glad I didn't go there.

First of all I never said i was a better meteorologist then you. Second of all you never answered my question..Just answer it!!!..Be a man!!!..Thirdly I graduated from Rutgers University in 1992, and even went to college with someone in the weatherunderground community, so if you need proof I will give you his e-mail..LOL..Yeah Rutgers is a terrible school..LOL..
Apologies, hurricanechaser, I got distracted while reading your post and missed your mention of Gilbert.... I should be in bed right now and it's begining to show.....
Hey cyclonebuster,

You never asked this question in a way that made since.

"Will lowering SSTs TO 75 degrees weaken a CAT5 hurricane if it passes over that human induced cooler water that has been upwelled?"

First of all, intense hurricanes weaken themselves through internal dynamics and its rare for them to maintain such intensity very long even over optimal conditions.

Secondly, your suggestion is obviously correct in theory but it is still conceivable for a category five in an intensification phase moving fairly quickly over this small area you note could still retain its category five intensity and most certainly would not drop to a category one if thats how I interpret your initial post with this question.

Why couldn't you drop it...after I said...

Posted By: hurricanechaser at 10:24 PM GMT on January 10, 2006.

Cyclonebuster,

Please remember you asked for my opinion which doesn't mean it can't work. Therefore, I want to say that I hope that it does and naturally wish you luck.:)

Thanks,
Tony

I stated that the theory CAN BE WRONG for the tunnel idea because it is YET to be proven for hurricanes...That simple!

ok...I gotta go, too much ridiculous and irrelevant conversation for me. This is a huge waste of time. I for one don't consider myself any smarter or better at forecasting storms any better than anyone else regardless of my experience but I can't simply not comment when I know something to be undeniably true when there are obviously others who look at these blogs and form their opinions based on the statements presented.

I would strongly encourage EVERYONE to ALWAYS do your OWN research before simply accepting ANY of OUR comments as FACT.

Thanks,
Tony


Ft. Walton,

I know you meant well but this is why I am spending so much time correcting everyones statements.

"Actually, hurricanechaser, we have had one before the current active cycle that was that huge. I was living in Ft Walton Beach, Fl when Gilbert was hitting the Yucatan and we were getting tropical storm force winds from him. He was a monster of a storm. He completely covered the Gulf of Mexico at one point."

"Gilbert was HUGE in 1988, Hugo was HUGE in 1989 all before this new AMO cycle;e began in 1995."

From the post you referenced...please reread.:)

I realize you meant well however.:)

Thanks,
Tony

Hey Ft.walton,

I apologize as well..I didn't see the next post.:)

Thanks again,
Tony
Uh-oh...the big downward trend on SSTAs that we saw in December has reversed and slammed upward:

Hey Bob,

I would simply like to stop these back and forth personal jabs at one another. You appear to have sarcastically stated...

"Hey Tony!!..I am still awaiting your Yes or No answer on New Orleans..But hey you'll make a good meteorologist oneday, always hedging..LOL..They are teaching you well at that school of yours..LOL."

Who could objectively say you weren't implying you were a better meteorologist than me.

Secondly, I was WRONG to question your honesty about your schooling and I believe what you state about that, no proof needed.:)

I ask that you respectfully appreciate my education and experience as well.:)

Once again, I did answer your question..Don't rebuild any part of New Orleans that can be flooded assuredly, if another devastating storm strikes. If that means there's no where in the City that meets that criteria...then, yes...evacuate it all.

If there are areas considered safe as noted by DMS, then populate these areas ONLY. This is the third time I posted this same general comment.

And I hope you don't believe it was appropriate to suggest I didn't answer your question even if it didn't meet your level of clarity, saying, "come on, be a man" as you put it.

In my personal opinion, a REAL man takes responsibility for his actions and gets no pleasure out of belittling others.

For my part in this ridiculous exchange, I sincerely apologize. It's up to you to accept it which I hope you will.

Regardless, I hope you have a goodnight with all sincerity.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Hey cyclonebuster,

Do you honestly think I am not aware of that. You are not reading my posts for what it says.

Here's my comment once again to your question about whether I believed that a category five would definitely weaken over 75 degree water temperatures even down to a category one...

"First of all, intense hurricanes weaken themselves through internal dynamics and its rare for them to maintain such intensity very long even over optimal conditions."

That was an important statement about such intense storms.:)

"Secondly, your suggestion is obviously correct in theory, but it is still conceivable for a category five in an intensification phase moving fairly quickly over this small area you note could still retain its category five intensity and most certainly would not drop to a category one if thats how I interpret your initial post with this question."

You followed with this statement, I must ask, where did I suggest otherwise?

"Tony,

Have you ever seen what happens to a strong hurricane if it stays in one place for a long time due to the upwelling? Also, if one follows the path of a previous storm the upwelling weakens the storm that follows. It is well documented."


Honestly, you won't find too many (NOT SAYING NO ONE OF COURSE)who know as much about hurricanes than myself. I have been studying these fascinating storms since 1984 and been a professional forecaster off and on for years. My wife even thinks I love hurricanes more than her.LOL...not true by the way.:)

So, of course, i know all that you noted but that had no relevance to my reply to your first question.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Thank you for finally answering my question, Tony. Here is some good work towards reducing Global Warming...Link

Have a good nite!!!
hey hurricanechaser and ever one it see like ever one if haveing fun

this to tell you all i will have my frist low snow with snow level get as low as 2,000ft to 3,000ft
Hey Bob,

I answered your question three times...it just took you that long to get it.:)

Thanks,

Tony
Hey Everyone,

I can't stand talking with two faced and manipulative people who insist on belittling others and call them names. This is what I get while I'm trying to stop this back and forth jabbing which serves no real purpose.

*********** Original message follows: ***********
Sent by weatherguy03 at: 11:09 PM GMT on January 10, 2006


Play meterologist..Yeah right dude..I graduated from Rutgers, I dont know what you are talking about..I even went to school with someone on this blog...You are a joke!!!..Just watch what you are saying about me, ok. So is it Yes or No...Rebuild New Orleans...I know you dont want it rebuilt, because most Right Wing Facist Republicans like yourself would love to see it go away...But it isnt..Well for now Bush will ignore it, but it wont go away!!!...Have a nice day!!!


Hey Bob,

Well, I guess we can see why you are so upset...must be a major Liberal which is your right. You are absolutely wrong to stereotype my political views that are only Conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage for example.

I am a moderate on social security, welfare, taxes, etc. So I'm hardly a right wing Fascist, which you must be saying I'm racist which is WRONG! Why do you insist on being rude with this name calling?

I have answered your question three times already...can't you read for goodness sake?

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO ASSUME I WANT A CITY TO GO AWAY, UNLESS IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR SAFETY, it's called compassion, certainly understand why you don't get that!

Secondly, I HAVE APPLIED MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS TO INCLUDE MY OWN CITY...thank you.:)

You are the one who appears to be, "a joke" to quote your pleasantries.:)

And if you think I'm a joke...compete with me to see if your meteorological skills match mine.

Your arrogant, defensible, and rude attitude definitely seems to add an element of untrustworthiness, as to whether you did get a Masters in meteorology, for I have yet to see one intelligent post meteorologically speaking.

Anyone can have more than one screen name and manipulate the blogs, so your supposed friend on this blog couldn't prove much.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Bob,

If you want to truly stop global warming, you need to move the Earth farther away from the sun. There's your fix to stop this NATURAL function of climate variability known as Global warming.

I don't won't to be living in sub zero temperatures either so I think I will simply be thankful we have these alternating Global cycles myself.:)

This is ONLY MY OPINION, NO MORE AND NO LESS!

IN OTHER WORDS, BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT, but PLEASE STOP THE INSULTS and NAME CALLING!

Thanks,
Tony


Hey cyclonebuster,

I'm trying to be understanding and patient, but PLEASE tell me where you get such an absurd idea as to think I wouldn't know that there is a direct correlation between sea surface temperatures and hurricane intensity.

WHERE DID I SUGGEST OTHERWISE?

Heres's your comment:

"Tony,

What you are saying is not true. There is a direct correlation to a hurricanes maximum wind speeds when compared to SSTs."

To my post saying...

Here's my comment once again to your question about whether I believed that a category five would definitely weaken over 75 degree water temperatures even down to a category one...

"First of all, intense hurricanes weaken themselves through internal dynamics and its rare for them to maintain such intensity very long even over optimal conditions."

That was an important statement about such intense storms.:)

"Secondly, your suggestion is obviously correct in theory, but it is still conceivable for a category five in an intensification phase moving fairly quickly over this small area you note could still retain its category five intensity and most certainly would not drop to a category one if thats how I interpret your initial post with this question."

To be as specific as possible, I was saying that it is STILL POSSIBLE for a category five hurricane to move over a small area of 75 degree waters at a fairly quick pace and still maintain category five status.

Of course, I know that a hurricane that stalls creates upwelling...please read my comments correctly.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Hurricanechaser.
Why is it that you must talk to people on here like we are all Stupid. And that you know it all. This sounds like the blog Pre Katrina that made all others leave Dr.Master's (and this is who it belongs to) and start there own. If you must continue you this can you please bring it to your own.
Thank You,
Raysfan70
hey hurricanechaser whats up
Hey everyone,

I am going to call it a night...this is ridiculous to say the least. LOL

I hope you all have a great night.:)

Cyclonebuster,

Please feel free to read my posts on hurricane basics to understand what I already know to be true.:)

It was never a question as to whether a category five could survive over 75 degree temperatures for a sustained period of time or that upwelling wouldn't;t create weakening. Of course, that's true.

You asked if I thought a category five could maintain intensity over 75 degree temperatures and I gave you the possible scenario where it could with it moving quickly over that water temperature for a short period of time.

Obviously, a complete misunderstanding I presume. I hope you now can reread all the posts and see it from the beginning.

Thanks,
Tony


Raysfan,

"Hurricanechaser.

Why is it that you must talk to people on here like we are all Stupid. And that you know it all. This sounds like the blog Pre Katrina that made all others leave Dr.Master's (and this is who it belongs to) and start there own. If you must continue you this can you please bring it to your own."
Thank You,
Raysfan70

I have NOT ONCE talked to ANYONE as if they are Stupid nor tried to belittled others like your friend who may very well be you under another screen name.

I wasn't here for Katrina and from what those told me, it was those like Lefty who left this blog, because he had an attitude problem... which wasn't my fault.

I got plenty of emails saying that he was wrong and that they each joined other blogs because of attitudes like those from BOB and Lefty.

Please find where I've ONCE said I was superior to anyone, except when I asked the all knowing Bob, if he wanted to challenge me after he belittled me and insulted my education.

I am not talking to you or anyone specifically most of the time on theses blogs, I'm simply here to share what knowledge I have with others.

I am not here to compete in reality...it's obvious others feel threatened and I'm sorry I make you feel stupid.

I have ALWAYS stated I will be WRONG more often than I'm right concerning this inexact science as will everyone else.

As a result, I have very little patience with people who ACTUALLY act superior and say that are ALWAYS RIGHT and their opinions are FACT.

Now, contrast this with the FACT I always say my forecasts are simply MY BEST EDUCATED GUESS...that's called humility but I guess you can't understand that either.

Honestly, your opinion as well as Bobs doesn't matter to me because the ones on here that truly know me would realize you are indeed wrong with your characterization and that's the people I want to communicate with...people who respect others and have humility and don't blame everyone else for their problems.

Simply put, if that's your attitude, then your thoughts are biased and not relevant whatsoever.

Thanks,
Tony


Cyclonebuster,

I didn't see your last post...sorry about that. I haven't studied this and there are so many unpredictable factors involved that have to be considered such as speed of forward motion, its trajectory, size of the storm, and its surrounding atmospheric conditions, etc.

That's why it's impossible to simplify it that way.

In other words, I am not sure exactly, but it could do so for a relatively short period of time, just not sure how long that would be.

You were saying 40 miles of this 75 degree water...if it was moving at 20 mph...that's only 2 hours over that cooler water and if it was rapidly intensifying when it hit this cooler water, it could weaken very little, especially if it took a trajectory that kept the storm over this water for an even shorter period of time.

We are simply talking about possibilities...no definite answer here.:)

Honstly, I have to go, I've stayed on here about two hours longer than I needed to.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Hey cyclonebuster,

I will once again say that I commend you greatly for your concept and I am NOT saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE, just for the record.

Only that I personally believe it wouldn't actually work. But, I have been wrong before and will be wrong many more times in the future.

In this case, I hope I am wrong and wish you the best.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Tony you are a coward!!!..Why are you blocking my e-mails to you!!!...Ha Ha!!..Hey you can post my e-mails to you I dont care..So instead of sending you mail because I didnt want to use up Dr. Masters space I guess I will just say it to your face here then..Sorry Dr. Masters...
There's a show on PBS about this right now (EST)
Hey Bob,

Here's a copy of my response to your post...I'm not a coward...LOL..thats something you would never say to me in person.:)

Hey Bob,

Sorry...I hope you got it...I forgot I can't copy what I wrote after its gone.:)

Thanks,
Tony
Hey Bob,

If you got my mail you will see the reason I blocked you is because I wanted the continued name calling to end..then I come in here after sending you that email and see it continues anyway...regardless, I simply hope you will ponder my comments.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Easy Tony...I didnt get your mail right away..LOL..I am slow, been doing other stuff...Hope you got my mail..Take care..

Bob
To everyone else including Dr. Masters,

I sincerely apologize for taking up so much space taking part in this back and forth jabbing at one another.

I hope everyone has a great night.:)

Thanks,
Tony


179. MDI
Hey that was wierd>>

Posted By: cyclonebuster at 9:15 PM GMT on January 10, 2006.
Hey cyclonebusteer,
180. MDI
I like the question mark at the end of the title for this blog. Did anyone else see that?
Now cyclonebuster, you just need to figure out how to get the hurricane to travel over the tunnel and you will be set. Some hotdogs usually get my dog where I want him.
Hey ~ the NOVA science now was good. Better yet on their site they have an audio-read along with lots of graphs (all copyrighted or i'd of posted them~must see stuff).

Here's the synopsis of the couple of Doctor's life work.

There is a corrilation between SST going up and more energy being released by hurricanes. SST have been steadily rising around the world. The total energy being released by hurricanes around the world has remained about the same. The total # of storm days & # of storms for the world have dropped in total recently due to that natural cycle. All areas except the atlantic has seen average or well below average storm # & days, while the Atlantic's storm #'s & storm days have shot up in a near vertical trend since 1995. Over the last 35 years as the total storm days & storm #'s for the world have decreased the # of cat 4 & 5 storms have doubled. All of this is backed up with graphs, data & numbers. The question of~ is the rise in SST due to global warming? ...is left unanswered.

GO HERE & CLICK ON HOTTER OCEANS FIERCER STORMS ~starting tommarrow you can see web cast of the scientist talking about it all. It's the show they're running tonight ~PBS
I suggest a ban on discussions of NOLA reconstruction - all they lead to is flaming.
A MET's name is Chris LANDSEA?

O_O
Why don't you just set up a bunch of turbofans in the sahara desert and pump dust in the air during hurricane season. Seemed to have put quite a damper in this season.
Yeah I have to agree on the enviornmental impact. You are talking migration cycles, current and solidity of the water. Seems you would have a bunch of pissed of cold fish.
Messing with something so important as the Gulf Stream is disasterous.
Howdy KRWZ
195. mobal
JeffMasters,
Thank you for your knowlagable analysis.
Hey everyone,

I have to get some sleep, but I wanted to post a link to my latest blog entry, which I don't normally do. However, I posted a new blog with the NHC reply from the authors of the Hurricane Katrina report.

Thanks,
Tony


Link
hey ProgressivePulse how are you come by my blog it has this been update
Hey everyone :)

I have to say that cyclonebuster's idea about the tunnels is ingenious. It would be very very hard to pull off but the principle is awesome. I honestly don't think it will work because it is so hard to regulate something like that, but its not impossible and the concept is fantastic. Very well thought out :)

If anyone hasn't read my updated outlook on the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season, you are welcome to leave a comment and your own predictions if you wish.

Hope everyone has a great night.

Rich
Hey Tony, hope you are ok. Go get your well deserved rest after the great weather 101 blog you compiled :)
atmosweather my blog is update for the frist time in 3 days so come on by
Hey David :) I will check out your blog now.

Meanwhile, New Delhi, India had their first frost in 70 years. Extremely rare cold air invasion from the Himalayas. I also have been hearing that areas of New York were affected by a minor earthquake last night. If anyone has any more details about that I would appreciate it greatly :)

Thanks

Rich
LOL........
At least someone else takin the heat for this one....
hey Chaser..... Now I dont look so bad huh?????/
cyclonebuster, your tunnel idea is probably a good idea for electricity generation, but promoting it as a climate control mechinism is a poor idea.

Fluid mixing, why do you believe the cooler water will stay on the surface. My assumption (without any futher data) is that the cooler water is likely more saline, cold salty water should sink rather quickly. This in itsself may have side effects of a cold water column at the end of the tunnel, slowing down the flow of water through the tunnel reducing its effectiveness.

What will kill the project all together is the political fallout from the environmental effects. Building a 2000 square mile parking lot would cause noticable local, provable environmental effects (see Heat Island). Building a 2000 square mile cold spot in the ocean will cause noticable local, provable environmental effects. Putting (whatever a large amount in tonnes) of CO2 in the air does not cause a local, provable environmental effect, in this case human induced global warming. An ulgy building in an office park will get torn down quickly. Urban spral, there is not a quick or even correct solution for that.

Technology for modifing the weather should follow one important law. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

I could talk about this all day, but I'll stop here for now.
205. Inyo
man, hurricanechaser's credibility really went out the window when he started spouting these right-wing 'conspiracy' theories. Oh yes, the LIBERALS are trying to destroy our country by requesting a change to renewable resources, therefore the entire scientific community is corrupted, but on the other hand the oil companies and their president are TOTALLY objective as to whether or not THEIR PRODUCT, which makes them money, causes a problem. Anyone who would trust what our government is feeding us now is probably the type who would let a fox guard their chickens, or believe Marlboro's assertion that cigarettes are harmless despite watching several smoking relatives die of lung cancer. Seriously, its really a stretch. You have a lot of good knowledge about climatology, and interesting scientific theories, but your political rant is just silly.

You also seem to be literally angered by these scientific theories, to the point where it seems like you are in denial, or something. A real scientist will use evidence, not bunk politics, to prove a point, and although you do present evidence for natural warming (which i believe IS indeed a cause of much, if not all, of the warming) you don't really present anything debunking the theory that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the climate... something that has been documented in ice cores, etc.

And i am with you completely on one thing:

i believe natural climate variation in the past has been far more extreme, sudden, dramatic, and wide ranging than anything we are looking at now, and these huge natural fluxuations may very well dwarf human-caused global warming. If this is what we are in for... the oil isn't going to make much of a difference and we're in for it either way.
Inyo...did chaser actually say those things, or are you just putting words in his mouth???
207. Inyo
it was certainly implied in a lot of his posts and i believe in the newer thread it is.

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.

It was kind of a waste to post this here, and probably not that appropriate since clearly everyone is jumping on him right now. It's good to hear from the 'other side' of things, but to me (i am liberal in a lot of ways but try to be objective) it really seemed very 'slanted'