There are lots of lines of evidence offered for global warming. Chief among these are long term ground level temperature measurements showing a warming world which have now been supported by the reanalysis of satellite measurements of troposheric temperatures. More recently analysis of the measurements of sea temperatures over time at different depths has added robustness to the evidence. Also important are global atmospheric circulation models and linked ocean circulation models that reliably produce these temperature changes when fed information on the rising levels of green house gases. There are other lines of evidence as well. However, it is fairly obvious that public will not take GW seriously enough to make life style and financial sacrifices until it is clear that GW is impacting their lives directly.

Determining whether extreme weather events are related to GW is made difficult by wide variation in natural weather events. For instance, the number of tropical cyclones in a given region, of which hurricanes are a subgroup, tend to change in 30 year cycles but remain stable in number year to year globally. Experts can detect no increase in their frequency. Other extreme weather events like droughts, record high temperatures, record high minimum temperatures, record rain falls, and the like suffer from similar difficulties of analysis. Nevertheless, some scientists are proposing that looking at the trends of these events or, in the case of tropical cyclones, trends in the total energy of individual storms, can separate the GW impact from background weather noise. For a good discussion of this see Record Breaking Events and Storms and GW.

Kerry Emanuel recently published a paper in Nature summarized in the abstract thusly,

Abstract. See New Scientist Article for discussion.


Do you find Emanuel's analysis persuasive? If not, why not?

What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Emanuel's study has some problems with it. From your link:



I found this article from The New Scientist to be of interest:

Link



That "definitely" is pretty strong language.



As far as I can tell, there seems to be agreement that global warming may not have any effect on the number of tropical storms, but it is making them more destructive. Was the wrath of Katrina increased by rising water temperatures? It seems likely.

To answer the questions for debate directly, I find Emanuel's work fairly persuasive, but not definitive, based on the admitted difficulty of measuring wind intensity.

The evidence that I require is that presented by professional scientists in respected, peer-reviewed journals. For non-professionals, the best way to find such information is in respected journals designed for the interested layperson, such as New Scientist and Scientific American.

Victoria, thanks for looking and thinking about the links. Even though it is unwarranted to attribute the strength of any one storm to global warming, I had hoped that Katrina would cause more ADers to examine this topic.

Since I started the topic RealClimate has added an article that discusses the issue in the context of Katrina. You (and hopefully others) may find it of interest. The article concludes with these remarks,



RealClimate Article

Hurricane Rita is now forecast to become a major hurricane - category 4 or higher and geographically large. All of the above discussion applies to Rita as much as it does to Katrina. This is the second major hurricane in three weeks. Shouldn't this cause us to at least look closely at what is going on? I posit the following question once again:


What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Well, actually, any evidence would be a good place to start. This question was examined after Katrina, using all the hurricane data since they've been monitoring them (over 40 years, I think) and the data showed only a very slight influence of temperature on hurricane strength, well within the margin of error (sorry, no link, watched it on one of the news channels). Essentially, hurricanes are random acts of nature, and there's not much evidence of anything beyond that.

I will further note that when I did a search for this study, I found all kinds of links purporting evidence of this effect. All were being put forth by organizations with a vested influence in showing a linkage, and therefore inherently biased. Further, they were theoretical as opposed to empirical, both allowing their bias further play and also intentionally disregarding existing data's ability to confirm or deny their theories.

I am afraid that is quite false. The link between water temperature and the strength of hurricanes is not error, or even theortical, it is basic meteorology. Hurricanes gain strength passing over warmer water. Thats why huricanes that come up through the gulf are always stronger than ones coming off the east or west coast.

You can feel free to question wheither the increased temperature of water due to global arming is worsening the effect, that is demonstrated but not yet proven. However the link between water temperature and hurricane strength is quite unimpeachable.




What does that mean? What vested interest exactly? Do you mean that they were put forth by environmental organisations, and thus you choose not to believe them? What vested interest could all these organisations you mentioned have in falsifying evidence to support increased hurrican strength?

Climate change is a long term process.

Looking at individual storms and saying :"Look!! Global warming is obvious!!" is not scientifically valid.

Tropical Storms and Hurricanes by Month
Prior to 2005 and over the last 35 years, the US has experienced only three3 category 4 or 5 hurricanes: Charley in 2004, Andrew of 1992 and Hugo of 1989. Historically, however, category 4/5 hurricanes occur every 6 or 7 years. So we should have had 5 such storms. Add in the two this year and you are back to average.

Storms occur in cycles, just as most things in nature. Looking at one data point is not helpful. For example, in 1914, there was only 1 tropical storm and no hurricanes. Yet in 1916, there 14 tropical storms. In 1917, there were only 3. You simply cannot look at instantaneous data and make any conclusions based upon it.

There is a lot of information available on the NOAA website There was a lot more hurricane activity (by decade) in the 1940s, 1880s, 1890s, 1910s and 1940s than there was in the 1990s. In fact, over the past 5 decades(1990s, 1980s, and 1970s, 1960s and 1950s) there have been fewer than the average number of tropical storms per year. We are due for the law of averages to kick in.

As for Emmanuel's study, leading hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University called this study: "a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at.” link

Hurricanes gain strength passing over warmer water...but does warmer weather cause stronger hurricanes? That is the question...and the data indicated that no, it did not. Strong hurricanes have occured in colder months, in warmer months, with colder water, and with warmer water. So, no, the linkage between temperature and hurricane strength was not only immenently impeachable, it was empirically found statistically non-existent. Further, consider the fact that if there weren't colder water somewhere, then there wouldn't be warmer water to go over...thereby indicating that it is cold water that would spawn strong storms, not warm, as warmer is an inherently relative concept.

(Note: Global warming refers to air temperatures, not water temperatures. The study conducted focused on the same. The results therefore follow basic common sense...if air temperature had a significant effect, we would only see strong hurricanes in August and early September, during excessively hot periods. But, we know that strong hurricanes can occur almost anytime, in a wide variety of weather conditions. Therefore, the fact that empirical evidence supports this shouldn't be surprising to anyone).



No, they had no empirical evidence to falsify. Yes, this meant that I then inherently questioned their theories, since their very existence depends on demonstrating such relationships. Anyone who fails to question it based on that is ignoring the reality of the situation, IMHO.


Note: not disregard, question.

Do you find Emanuel's analysis persuasive? If not, why not?

Yes, it all makes perfect sense to me. Like Vermillion stated, water temperature directly impacts the strength of the storm.

What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

I believe we have all the evidence we need. It’s been proven that water temperature determines the severity of a hurricane, and the Gulf of Mexico has seen a steady rise in water temperature which can be attributed to global warming.

But any rise or fall of global temperatures are going to impact the weather. Wind is generated from the differences in air, water, and surface temperatures and wind is the primary conductor in our weather patterns.

Since the focus of the weather on this thread has been hurricanes I think an important area to focus studies should be given to impact on the Cape Verde type hurricanes. These have their origins via thunderstorms in the African savannahs, which then move to the ocean as a tropical storm and make their way towards us. I think it would be beneficial to understand how global warming impacts those storms in the African savannah.

Although I’m a “green” person, like Amlord has stated in numerous threads, I really haven’t found conclusive evidence that we’re causing global warming, most of this is "probably" cyclical. Trust me I’ve searched high and low for evidence but I still think we should be responsible guests of this planet and do our best to reduce harmful emissions. We might be able to survive natural cycles, but if you add our destructive behavior on top of the natural cycles, by the time we have conclusive evidence it might be too late.

Dr. Gray is a 75 year old professor emeritus at CSU. He was a pioneer in predicting hurricane activity and deserves respect. However, criticism of this sort is not constructive. Emmanuel is with MIT (along with Lindsen) and has solid credentials. His paper was peer reviewed. It is possible to quarrel with Emmanuel's methods or even offer an alternative interpretation of his evidence, but to be credible, it has to be something more than a dismissive remark to a journalist.



My original post nor any subsequent post implied that a single or even two unusual hurricanes made global warming obvious. They do seem suggestive, however, particularly following the release of Emmanuel's paper.

I was merely trying to establish a baseline of unusual weather events that most people would accept as personal evidence of global warming. We have seen significantly higher temperatures in Alaska and Siberia, melting peat bogs the size of Germany and France combined, melting tropical glaciers, the breakup of antarctic ice shelves, a series of the hottest years on record in the last 10 years, droughts, record rainfalls, and now unusual hurricane intensity. Most of these events fit with the predictions of greenhouse gas forcing theory and modeling.

All I want to know is what threshold would have to be crossed before you personally became concerned about global warming. Would it be 3 class 4 or 5 hurricanes impacting the US in one year together with a major drought? Would it be another temperature record breaking year combined with a major breakup of part of the West Antarctic ice shelf? Or are you so wedded to your position that no evidence would be sufficient?

I guess it's only "unusual" if there is no historical context. Globally, over the last ten years the number of storm activity has been down. Also, the number of storm days are down. (around the lowest point since 1970). The graphs I link to only go back to 1970. In other words, just like everything else this is cyclical.

For an idea about how many storms we had between 1920 and 1940 go here.

If you read the entire article I linked you will see that this is addressed:



Dr. Gray criticized the methodology used, not just the conclusions.





Anecdotal evidence is useless. No amount of anecdotes will convince me. I need a hypothesis, a methodology, and data that supports it.

We have the hypothesis: Anthropomorphic causes are leading to global warming. Said warming is causing hurricanes to be more intense.

We have methodology (I guess). Warmer water creates stronger storms.

We have no data to back this up.

If this were occurring the way Emmanuel posits, then we would have seen a steady increase in hurricane strength over the past 100 years. We have not seen that. We have seen cycles where for a period of a decade or two hurricanes are more intense or more frequent. This data does not correlate, however, with the measured temperature rises which are demonstrable (although the cause is not proven).

That is where the hypothesis falls apart.

So, a slight increase in the temperature of the lowest layer of the atmosphere can change a huge mass of water's temperature? Without getting into the thermodynamics, do you realize how much energy is required to heat up a CUP of water? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of square miles of DEEP water. The simplistic cause and effect relationships that laymen are throwing around as part of the man-made global warming theory are just plain nonsense.

It makes perfect sense to you? Really? Why? Please explain the physics involved and the interaction of the oceans, the atmosphere, and the dominant extraterrestrial factor involved (i.e., the sun and it's constant bombardment of the earth with high energy radiation). Then, explain how the relatively recent impact (i.e., a mere snapshot in geological time) of man's CO2 emissions could change that mass of water within the 4.5 years of the Bush presidency.




We have almost NO evidence that man is heating up the atmosphere and thus changing the climate. We have observational evidence that the earth is getting warmer. But there is a confusion between observation and conclusion in the global warming debate. The hypothesis has been put forth that additional CO2 will cause a "greenhouse effect" and thus heat the earth. But, the model doesn't really take into account the interaction of the oceans and/or the impact of the sun's variation. Most of the "global warming" models are simplistic in that regard. They lack substantial historical data and a full understanding of the SYSTEM of the climate, so simplistic models are the rule.

Yet, that doesn't prevent a "green" person from stating that a fraction of an increase in atmospheric temperature (at sea level) can cause the following:



When you match a simplistic model, that may lack several of the dominant variables, and combine it with statistically insignificant data, you can get inaccurate predictions. Throw politics into the equation and you get "noise".

I personally think that the "man made global warming" theory is total and complete hogwash. For all we know, the impact of man may be cooling the earth from it's normal heating cycle. For all we know, the impact of natural parts of the earth's total system are doing exactly what they will do; with or without man.

The fact that politics (from the left) and research funding are at the forefront of this issue makes it highly suspect right out of the blocks.

Just look at the end result of Katrina. The water was still rising in New Orleans and the ultra left was already declaring the hurricane, a NATURAL EVENT, to be the result of the Bush administration not signing the Kyoto treaty.

This type of absurd far out pronouncement should be rejected out of hand. But no. It was dutifully reported by the scientifically and mathematically challenged liberal press corps who accepted such idiocy without any skepticism whatsoever.

And so did the left. Why? Because it gave them another spear to throw at our President.

Kyoto, for anyone who actually read it, excluded the worst offenders of that so-called "harmful" naturally occurring gas, carbon dioxide; a gas that is an essential part of life's system via photosynthesis. Since the worst polluters in countries such as China, India, and Brazil were excluded, one doubts that even the full adoption of this happy-talk "treaty" by the US and EU (which haven't ratified it either) would really impact the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in any measurable way.

And, because the sun's continuous explosion of hydrogen fusion is an uncontrollable system (by man anyway), and because the earth has ways of dramatically changing the concentration of CO2 and particulates in the atmosphere via volcanic activity, it's arguable that Kyoto, or ANY OTHER similar type human activity would have ZERO impact on the earth's systems.

But, I can see why it's so tempting to believe that man has such impact. If one believes that, then one can believe that man is the master of the universe and that man can create or destroy entire planets. Such a position of overwhelming arrogance can be seductive; thus the attraction.

Eleven replies before yours and no mention of politics. It’s a rare and refreshing occasion when on this board partisanship is cast aside.

Well done sir.


Sounds like you have a harder chore on your hands. Can you prove that hurricanes feed off of DEEP water?


Surface temperatures. I know this much, the surface temperatures in the massive lake that I fish in goes from the low 40’s into the high 80’s within 4 months. That’s a lot of energy, but according to you it’s impossible so I must need a new temperature gauge because it’s certainly more than a cup of water.


Please point out where I blamed humans for global warming. One of my concerns is if we continuously take your stance, that there’s no way humans could engage in any activity that could warm the earth, than we’ll deserve what we get.

I try to stay well informed and quite frankly I’m sitting right on the fence. However since your global warming argument is predicated on “it’s a natural cycle” and you’re asking for proof of man made causes than I certainly think it’s fair to ask for proof on your side.

You can’t.

In your words:


You’re argument is based on the fact that we can use roughly 150 years of semi-accurate weather measurements to determine weather cycles for a planet that’s been around for 4.55 billion years.


Ok Amlord, I’m appealing to the engineer here, and this is really as much a question as a statement. From the link above:


The first line “Warm, moist air from the ocean surface begins to rise rapidly”, wouldn’t this indicated that at some point the water warms to a particular point where it begins to “push the air rapidly”. Isn’t it safe to assume that with warmer water there’s more energy to produce a more rapid rise which increases the intensity of the storm?

There’s no question that hurricanes loose their intensity once they move over cooler waters so why wouldn’t he converse hold true?

You’re looking for data that is hard to gather, I think this is a matter of physics.

Although I find agreement in much of what Fife and Drum has posted, all 3 of these statements are in profound disagreement with the scientific evidence. While there are still a few prominent climate scientists like Richard Lindsen who argue that global warming won't be significant enough to worry about, the vast majority accept that global warming is occurring and that it is at least partially human caused. The IPCC's Third Assessment Report released in 2001 concluded that not only had the earth's average temperature warmed by .6 degrees C (about 1 degree F), and that,

source

Furthermore the IPCC reviewers took into consideration all of the things lordhelmet says have been ignored. (Click thought this Index of the Scientific Basis for the TAR).

Since 2001, the conclusions in the TAR have been strengthen by hundreds of studies including some very significant ones. For example: The disagreement between satellite measurements of lower tropospheric temperature and ground measures has been resolved with adjustments in the satellite data to adjust for orbit decay and a peer reviewed study of ocean temperature changes by the Scrips Institute found a tell tale pattern of warming only consistent with green house gas forcing.

The conclusions of the TAR and subsequent studies have been endorsed by other scientific bodies including the National Academy of Science and its 7 sister bodies in the G8 plus those of Brazil and China. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all taken similar positions.

Here's a another quote from the same source.

source

This does not mean that there is not a great deal of uncertainty remaining and scientists still disagree about how much and how quickly the world will warm. However, we should not take too much comfort in this because the uncertainties are as much on the high side as the low one. Melting peat bogs in Western Siberia are not a good sign. Released methane and CO2 could lead to an accelerated warming.

The strongest storm ever recorded in the gulf of Mexico occured on Labor Day of 1935.

It had lower measured pressures than both Katrina and Rita.

Storm track

Perhaps you could explain how the FDR did nothing to stop the "global warming" of the 1930's that caused such a strong storm?

My point is that observing the temperature of the atmosphere, the oceans, and measuring things like "ozone" are very recent.

100 years ago, there was not the technology (nor much of an interest) on studying the "climate" and making detailed measurements with sophisticated measuring equipment.

500 years ago, such measuring did not exist on this earth.

1000 years ago?

5000 years ago?

The area that I currently live in (Michigan) was covered by hundreds of feet of ice 10,000 years ago. The huge masses of water surrounding my state, the great lakes, did not exist. The coastline of the US looked totally different. Yet, 10,000 years is a very short period of time when one looks at the total history of the earth (5,000,000,000 years). The time between the current state of our planet and the ice age represents only 0.0002% of the earth's lifetime to date.

Let me put that in perspective. If a human lives for 80 years, we're talking about a person making a huge radical change in appearance in 1.4 hours and continuing to make similar transformations throughout one's life.

The earth is a very DYNAMIC place. It goes through nearly constant upheavals, dramatic changes, massive reorganizations, and wild temperature fluctuations.

The same is true of the sun. It's dynamic. It's growing in size, getting hotter, and it frequently goes through periods of "storm" that change the amount of radiation it emits, and therefore, the amount of energy that our planet is bombarded with.

But, because we only live for less than a decade, what seems like "forever" is, to the earth, a few seconds.

The position that man is "responsible for hurricane" is laughable. It's arrogance. It's based on the false premise that the earth and the universe are static and are not constantly in the midst of violent transformation.

Man has appeared on this earth in recent history (from a geological perspective) and be gone and replaced by some other form of life down the road. And the earth, the sun, and the universe will continue with or without us.

No one is blaming anyone for Katrina or Rita. If they were influenced by climate change, carrying out the Kyoto agreement would have been much too little and much too late. What I am trying to do is to get others to seriously consider the possible consequences of climate change which may be many times worse than 2 devastating hurricanes. There is already substantial additional global warming built into the warmed oceans and the additional GH gas forcing from gases already added to the atmosphere. This isn't just something we can turn off and go back to the way things were. What we are really arguing about is how much additional warming we will tolerate beyond what is already in the pipeline!

The discussion of paleoclimate is totally off the point. It was the study of the coming and going of ice ages that gave birth to climate change science. It was the realization that the stable warm climate of the Holocene, which gave birth and nurtured human civilization, was unusual and that drastic shifts over short periods of time could occur in climate from subtle influences. Many scientists do now accept that the onset and end of ice ages is probably due to slight variations in the earths orbit and wobbles in the angle of the earth's axis. However, the changes in solar radiation received are minor and the majority of the climate change effect is induced by positive reinforcing from other systems, including changes in GH gas concentrations. Greenhouse gas forcing seems minor but it can have massive impact over time particularly with positive reinforcements. The Holocene may be a fleeting period in the grand drama of the solar system but it is the time when all 6 billion of us live and we should be anxious to preserve it as long as possible with as little starvation and as few weather disasters as possible.

This entire post, and your last one, repeat again and again that manking has only been here for a vry short time, thus we CANNOT affect the planet.

Good to know. I will tell those industries to stop filtering their smokestacks, and tell those Reactors to stop worrying about dumping their waste. After all, we cant have any effect on the planet, we are not here long enough!

Wildlife has existed on this planet for close to a billion years in one form or another. Modern humans have been here for a couple thousand! certainly in that short time we could not have made massive numbers of species extinct, destroyed ecosystems, altered the nature of the planet, after all we have not been here long enough!


Please. In the last 2 centuries manking has changed nearly every single facet of the environment in one way or another. If ANYTHING, the precident is that we certainly can change nature, even weather, through longterm actions.

Ever heard of a Pea-souper? It was a king of incredibly thick yellow-grey fog that covered Central and southern England, and Northern France, denmark and Germany for about 150 years periodically. It was a redult of a combination of certain kinds of chemicals polluting the atmosphere and natural fog, and it gave respiratory problems to hundreds of thousands. The pollution laws were changed, and the system diminished and eventually vanished over about 15 years.

But of course, we have not been here long enough to change the weather or environment, have we?



You are right about one (and as far as I can see, only one) thing. There is as of yet no proof that direct human agency is directly causing global warming. Proof being a key word.

There is however a vast quantity of observational evidence, accumulating every year. That is why when polled, 68% of scientists believe in the threat of global warming, and that number increases year to year as more evidence accumulates. Not long ago the opponents could simply say there was not enough evidence, but now, since there is SO much observational evidence, tactics have changed. Now crazy statements like 'Its all for money' and the like, are appearing, comments which show a clear zero understanding of how academic research funding works.


There is no absolute proof. It is POSSIBLE, that the global warming is actually just a uniquely rapid and sudden natural change in the atmosphere of the planet, I cannot deny that. But to completely deny or wholesale dismiss the accumulating evidence that states that maybe this is NOT a massive co-incidence is just plain silly.

Your premise is that man CAN preserve the earth in its current state. My premise, based on the history of the earth, is that it's a highly DYNAMIC system.

Therefore, we cannot change it. We can only deal with it.

Instead of all the hot air spent politically bashing each other over "climate change" and the tremendous amount of energy spent passing meaningless pieces of paper like "Kyoto", along with convincing the more gullible among us that climate reversal is indeed possible, we should come to grips with the fact that the earth is much more powerful than man (as is the universe) and just do our best to deal with it.

The hysteria around "global warming", it seems to me, is based partially on the premise that the earth, our climate, and the universe is a static entity.

It isn't.

I doubt that you could find one climate scientist that believes that the climate (or the earth and the universe) is a static entity. However, the one peer reviewed skeptic that is often referred to by global warming critics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, has come close to expressing this view.

From Weart Essay about 4/5th the way down at footnote 110. You could profit by reading the whole essay, the entire web site at Weart Index or his book The Discovery of Global Warming. At least you would gain some understanding of just who and what you so vehemently criticize.

Do you find Emanuel's analysis persuasive? If not, why not?

Sure, because the world's climate is changing.

What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Oh, I suppose one big natural disaster after another.

There are those who shrug it all off and claim that humans can't do anything about this anyway, so why worry? Others have vested self-interest at heart and don't want their pet industries to be regulated. Meanwhile, people are evacuating really big cities.

Okay, so what can humans do about that? As much as we can, eh? But at what point does this become too little? We've seen that point hit with Katrina, and are about to with Rita.

Um, I guess the Earth is practicing population control? The economy is going into wealth redistribution mode? The coastal areas are going into push the people back mode?

But we can't do anything about it. Oh well, so it goes.

Heh, sure. Tell that to the people on the road right now. I do believe rethinking is going on at several levels. What the dust bowl was of the 1930s could be what the hurricanes are for the 21st century. Except now there is no California to go to and no grapes of wrath to pick.

For all the suffering going on, this will be an interesting thing in terms of how people think down the road. I don't see the attitude that we just hunker down and take it as becoming very popular.

The earth is a highly dynamic system but you are completely wrong about the ability of humans to alter the environment, for good or bad.

The reason why the earth is a dynamic system is because it has numerous cycles and processes that work together to keep things in check. These cycles and processes have developed over millions of years. The mere fact that they are "old" does not mean that humans cannot disturb them. It is fairly easy to see the effects humans have on the environment if you'll put your ideology aside and focus on the science.

Here are just a few ways us mere humans can alter the environment:
- If you overfarm an area then the top soil becomes eroded and this not only makes the area unfarmable but can drastically alter the characteristics of the land - i.e. turn it into a desert.

- Large forests are responsible for absorbing CO2 and expiring oxygen, this is just one of the ways the earth regulates climate that every 8th grader knows about. Over the past several hundred years man has deforrested large portions of the planet so that now only a few places house significant forests and those are disappearing too. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to hotter temperatures, also from 8th grade earth science.

- Man invented refrigeration which directly lead the creation of CFCs which were subsequently released into the atmosphere in great quantities. These molecules did not exist naturally before man created them. This is a diagram of the chlorine-ozone catalytic cycle which is pretty simply non-negotiable freshman chemistry and a myth to ideologues. This cycle has lead directly to the documented destruction of the ozone layer.

I could go on and on with this because the examples are nearly limitless. Since the industrial revolution man has destroyed the environment around him at an unprecedented rate. It has only been recently that thanks to environmentalists people are beginning to see the error of their ways and take steps to correct their behavior.

There are a lot of doomsayers in the environmental movement but there are also a lot of rational people making conservative estimates about what is going to happen backed up by facts. Others attack these scientific findings not because of the science but because of politics and ideology. Our responsibility is to start making choices with the long view in mind instead of making decisions based on short term economic or political factors.

One of the contributors to Capitalism Magazine, James K. Glassman, recently conducted some interviews with leading hurricane experts, Dr. Gray among them, about their opinions of human-induced global warming:

Interview with Dr. Roy Spencer
Interview with Dr. James J. O'Brien
Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray

I'll quote a few of the relevant paragraphs:



This indicates to me that a sudden flurry of intense hurricanes is less a result of human abuse to the environment than it is natural climate cycles.

Katrina wasn't severe because the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter. It was severe because it spent so much time there. The Gulf of Mexico is the same temperature it has been for 50 years.

Leading hurricane experts believe hurricane activity is not caused by human-induced global warming.

A previous post raised the point that environmentalist groups had a vested interest. Here it is: research money. If you want funding, don't say that all is well, because there will be no reason to continue funding your research.

The flip side of this is obvious, of course and I acknowledge it. All three of these interviews were for capitalists, who also have a vested interest. Environmental restrictions play a major role in making business more expensive.

Taking all that into account, I don't find the Emmanual study to be very convincing, and I have a hard time believing that any of the recent hurricane activity is because of humans. There are too many "data adjustments" and "assumptions" in the study to make it seem reliable.

Jaellon, yours is the kind of discussion I was hoping to provoke. While I have some reservations about the source of your article, the scientists cited have solid credentials. I'm surprised that someone critical of Emanuel's study didn't cite this review of the science. While it is respectful of Emanuel's position it reviews the other scientific evidence and is skeptical of any demonstrable link between global warming and tropical storm intensity.

My own view is that Emanuel may very well be right but that more evidence is needed before we can accept or reject his claims. To parphrase the global warming skeptics' strange view of the scientific concensus on global warming, just because the consensus scientific opinion on tropical cyclones seems to oppose it, it is very possible that he has opened up a new way of examining these storms that will eventually be accepted. Here are some articles citing studies that tend to support Emanuels conclusions. Environmental Publication, Nature.com, and from The Chronicle of Higher Education we learn that Emanuel use to be part of the old school and was one of t he co-authors of the Pielke, et al article published originally in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and cited above.



P.S.
I encourage everyone to read the Chronicle of Higher Education Article because it does such a good job of putting this issue into the context of the scientific debate.

This article also has a good discussion of hurricanes and global warming. It is written for the viewpoint of someone who accepts the connection between rising global temperatures and increased hurricane strength.

Well, since I live in the sunshine state (would, should along with Texas and Louisiana, be renamed officially Hurricane Victims A-C), all I would have to do is look outside during a hurricane. I am old enough to remember having to evacuate for hurricane Floyd, and if it had come a mere ten miles more closer to shore, my home, and the island I live on, would be under sixty odd feet of water right now. If Floyd were spawned by the sea today, I have no doubt the scenario Floyd would have done if it had come closer would be a reality. Weather feeds on extreme heat, it powers them, encourages storms.

So, with the melting of the polar ice caps, and the rising of ocean levels, depletion of the ozone layer, and pollution from cars, factories, etc., we are shooting ourselves in the foot. There is no doubt in my mind that the sun and pollution are hand in hand in heating the oceans and helping create some of the worst weather conditions in history.

Do you find Emanuel's analysis persuasive? If not, why not?

Yes I do.


What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Temperature readings when combined with the total energy output of the human race is sufficient. Seen side by side its obvious that the massive daily out pouring of gases due to industry, commerce and the internal combustion engine is wreaking havoc with the delicate balance which has for a long time preserved ideal conditions for human and animal development.

Nothing scares me as much as climate change because I know, deep in my bones that it will destroy the world I was born into. Already the polar ice caps are melting as the temperature rises and the increased temperature of the sea's shows a global trend towards ever grwong storms.

What is truly appalling is the monumental stupidty and indifference by the human race.

In the western industrial nations we are too comfortable sitting on our flat behinds to do anything to save the world that gave us life. In the rest of the world, unchecked child birth together with chronic poverty, religious conviction and ignorance chokes the land and starves the people.

We, the human race, are slowly, but surely eating the world. It doesn't matter any more how many people starve to death in Africa or how many have AIDS. It doesn't matter what Allah commands the faithful or whether or not we have saved up a pension. Our grandparents and parents were fools who grasped and grabbed and gobbled up all they could. We follow in their footsteps, cutting down 1,000 year old tree's, buring up oil, wasting irreplacable natural resources in the name of capitalism.

On a day when scientists tell us that the polar ice caps are melting at a rate that will see the North pole gone in fifty years, that its already diminished by a thord since the 1970's and the decrease is getting larger every year as the loss of ice speeds up the influence of solar radiation on the planet. On such a day, the news that De Lay is corrupt makes headline news across the world.

As if its news that a politician cheated.

The world is dying, literally right in front of our eyes and yet we do nothing. Our leaders do nothing. GW Bush, more concerned about the US economy he needs to pay for his war to gain control of the most precious industrial resource gives the Kyoto accord the finger and is applauded for it by self satisfying morons who dismiss the inevitable because they are either too stupid or too scared to accept the responsibilty for what is taking place.

In København, the city council has given up the plan, set by the EU, to maintain clean air in the city.
Why? Because capitalism cannot tolerate any form of inhibition on the almighty agenda of making money.

As if we're so desperate we need to poison the air so we can afford air conditioning.

In Denmark as a whole, the Conservative, Capitalist government has given up the plan to make Denmark's water ways ecologically clean.
Why? Because it would cost a lot of money.

As if we can afford to drink the liquid sludge aggressive agriculture has let drain down into the water table from decades of pesticide use.

And they tell us Denmark is one of the most ecologically friendly nations on the planet!

So what? For as long as capital is the prime driving force of our politics then we are screwed. The world operates a fragile balance, an equilibrium that creates a harmonious counter between all the variables we need to exist. Once we screw that balance up, then we have lost. The human race will have reached its finishing line, because nature is unforgiving.

Its time to stop messing about with idiots who refuse to face up to the challenge. Unless the western industrial world changes its practice of rewarding greed then it doesn't matter who is President, Prime Minister or Regent. Who ever they are, they will be powerless puppets watching helplessly like the rest of us as our children inherit a dirty poisonous planet.

Do you find Emanuel's analysis persuasive? If not, why not?

No I do not. I have seen far too many contridictory papers for me to believe the number of storms are anything more than cyclic.

What kind of evidence would you require to accept that weather events are being influenced by Global Warming?

Something that the majority of the scientific community could agree upon, no splintered with one side being able to produce facts to contridict the other.

My outlook is almost as pessimistic as yours but not because of hurricanes. The evidence for global warming and its effects is far stronger when viewed from other perspectives than hurricanes. There still is honest scientific argument from real hurricane experts. My personal horror are the positive feedbacks that haven't been included in the modeling like the release of methane and CO2 from melting peat bogs and methane hydrates.



None of the studies suggest a significant increase in the number of tropical cyclones. What each purported to show was; Trenberth - increased rain in most hurricanes, Emanuel - more total energy, and Georgia Tech/National Center for Atmosperic Research - rising number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 30 years.

"None of the studies suggest a significant increase in the number of tropical cyclones. What each purported to show was; Trenberth - increased rain in most hurricanes, Emanuel - more total energy, and Georgia Tech/National Center for Atmosperic Research - rising number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 30 years."

Again, I see this as cyclic behavior from the things I have read. Some say one thing, some say another...yada yada yada...but there is no consensus. In simple terms, no one argues what makes waves, no one argues what causes hurricanes to form, no one argues why they spin clock-wise in one hemisphere. Until it gets to a point when no one argues the facts of Global Warming I will stand in the unconvinced line.

Roswell.

You will never have scientific consensus until it is too late.

And frankly, we don't need it. Common sense alone should be enough to guide us. Its plain and simple.
There are two simple paths forward.

The first is the Conservative method, which is to continue the status quo and allow industry and commerce to dictate our course of action. If we follow this path, and the Green's are correct then we will deplete the worlds valuable resources, poison the waters and destroy the eco system (all of which is already happening by the way and science is still arguing about it). Our children will inherit a broken world slowly dying from pollution.

The second is the Green way. To spend money developing new and cleaner ways of existing on the planet. If this method is wrong, the worst that can happen is we spent a lot of money making every thing cleaner and more pleasant for our children.

In my opinion, it all comes down to greed. The most greedy people on the planet are currently stuffing themselves with the valuable, irreplacable resources whilst ignoring the results of their gluttony.

For as long as greed is the prime motivation of the human race then we are basically just fat people eating ourselves to death.

I have to agree with you. The Emanuel study, and a similar one done at Georgia Tech by Webster, et al, while they may seem to prove global warming is affecting the hurricanes, fall down when the same study is conducted starting in 1940.

This study, Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection, does just that and shows a cycle going on. Scroll to the bottom and have a look at the chart. The right half (1970-2000) is pretty close to the Emanuel findings. The left side (1940-1970) shows just the opposite happening.

------------------------------------------

Moif, you seem to have an irrational hatred towards capitalism. And a very emotional appeal to save the world, while providing very few substantial facts to indicate the world is in trouble. Yes the polar ice caps have been melting recently. And yes, the average temperature on Earth has been rising. I am keeping my eye on the climates, as are many others. And while I see some cause for concern, and cause for some correction, I have yet to see substantially conclusive evidence, on many of the environmental issues, that is accepted by the scientific community as a whole. When you cannot even get consensus from the experts...

Phrases like these, while picturesque, are not convincing:

"...The world is dying..."
"...I know, deep in my bones..."
"...its obvious..."
"...slowly, but surely eating the world..."
"...gives the Kyoto accord the finger..."
"...a fragile balance, an equilibrium that creates a harmonious counter..."

especially when they are liberally interspersed with words like "stupid", "moron", and "idiot"

You mention flat disbelief that "Denmark is one of the most ecologically friendly nations on the planet". Why do you disbelieve that? Because agriculture there is not completely friendly to the environment?

President Bush may give the Kyoto protocol "the finger", as you put it, but I'm glad he is. I see little good that can come from that treaty, either environmentally or economically.

Why is it irrational to hate that which destroys? Capitalism is just war by another name. Its war-lite. Its domination, greed, self satisfaction and disregard for the needs of others.

What exactly is there to like about it?


YES the polar ice caps are melting... and you shrug and dismiss it as if its nothing to worry about.

An entire ecosystem is being destroyed and your 'keeping an eye on it'.

Big freaking deal! So what are you going to do when the polar bears are all dead? How are you going to repair that?

I guess Polar bears just don't matter to Conservatives. Just like Redwood tree's and Wolves and all the other endangered species that are gradually, year by year disapearing from the planet as we gobble up the world.


Would you face a firing squad with indifference?

Thats how I feel about the environment.

The reason why I don't quote endless facts and figures is because there's no point. Nothing I link to, no figures or statistics will change your mind. I've tried it many times, and always I'm faced by a supreme American indifference from people who label themselves Republican, or some other variant there of.

So, I'm not trying to change your mind (whats the point?) I'm merely venting my own frustrations and saying in a public forum what I feel about this topic.


I don't disbelieve it. I'm merely disgusted that we are so proud of so little. Being 'the most ecological nation on the planet' is meaningless when we give up the moment we have to spend some of our cash on cleaning up after ourselves.

It has even less meaning when nations such as yours are such collosal, and unashamed producers of pollution.


Then offer something in its stead. Offer the world some CREDIBLE alterntive to Kyoto!

If you haven't got anything better to offer then you have no right to dismiss the Kyoto Accord without a damned good reason... and some waffle about 'protecting your economy' just isn't good enough.

Your 'economy' is killing the ecosystem.

Another thing I have learned, is the Global Warming issue and the Environmental movement is a religion to people. It is ingrained into their belief system. Facts cannot deter people from religious beliefs. That is a main reason why I have very few debates with people on this topic. When people are willing to let other people die in the name of saving the enviroment...there is really no reasoning with them.

Die?

Who has let any one die here?

And thats a bit rich coming from a Conservative American. Do you know how many people your President has slaughtered in the name of his political ideology!

Seems like some obscure form of hypocrisy to me.

Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster once said, “People are the cause of all the problems. We need to get rid of some of them..."

-shrugs- That is the kind of attitude I am referring to.

Edit: And yes people can see politicial ideology as a religion as well...and with those people too, there is no arguing.

Well, I disagree completely.

Domination? wrong. That is communism. That is socialism. That is any form of heavy-handed government. Capitalism is about having the freedom to own what you create. It's about being able to live where you want, work how you want, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Greed? Self satisfaction? What you mean is self-interest, and the funny thing is that those nations that have the freest markets (people looking out for themselves) have the least poverty-stricken poor. The people of communist nations may all be equal, but they are all equally wretched. I make no apology for the self-interest motivation of capitalism.

Disregard for the needs of others? Well, it's a matter of what you do with your wealth once you have it. You might be amazed at what is given to charity, and how many people are willing to give much of what they have to help others. Look at the private response to the recent American hurricanes. All of this in a supposedly greedy, self-serving nation.

Tell you what. I challenge you to read Capitalism Magazine for a month, with an open mind, and see if there is anything rational there. I'll even reciprocate by reading a Green-friendly magazine that you name (with a website, please).



Show me evidence that the polar bears are in trouble. If I find it convincing, I will certainly take it up with my legislators. That's what I mean by keeping an eye on things. And spare me the blanket statements about Conservatives, or any other group.

No I wouldn't. And I can appreciate your views on the environment. But if you want to be convincing, hit me with an argument I can gnaw on.

You think I won't change my mind? If my mind were that made up, I wouldn't even be in this topic. I've already changed my mind on several other issues that have been discussed on . Now, if you are faced with a supreme American indifference, as you see it, putting you in the minority, then that should at least make you stop to reconsider your own position.

When I see issues that need addressed, I contact my legislators. As for the Kyoto Accord, I do have something better to offer, and that's leaving well enough alone. You don't need a treaty for that.

Again, show concrete evidence that pollution is causing global warming, etc., and I may just change my opinion.

One has to wonder how close "an eye" you're keeping on this particular issue. A simple google news search of "polar bears extinction" yielded 102 hits. Here's a lovely bit from Nashua Telepgraph:



Now I suppose that can be dismissed because there is no consensus on the subject. Then again, there is still no "consensus" on whether or not the Earth is flat. Consensus can never be achieved in a theory. Now you seem like a rational person, so I assume you accept that the sky is blue because that is the refraction colour of water, not because God likes blue. Now, do you accept that belief because it is a sound theory well supported by a body of evidence? Of course you do (or at the very least I hope you do.) There is a body of evidence that documents global warming. Now, it is not as conclusive as Newton's laws of optics, but it is legitimate enough that thousands of well trained scientists are able to believe and test it; which at the very least tells me you have some reason for not believing in it other than the fact that there is no consensus.

Further evidence of polar bear decline, just for your consideration... From the September 2004 issue of National Geographic:



The same article talks about a polar bear researcher who has observed that polar bears are in fact "getting skinnier" as the increasing shelf-melting has affected the feeding period of the bears.

But hey, that only proves that the earth is getting warmer. There's no consensus on the cause, so it makes perfect sense to not try and prevent it until we have proof. It's not like species are dying, biodiversity is decreasing, etc.

My standard for accepting a theory is can it be confirmed via testing. The answer in this case seems to be a resounding yes. The fact that not ALL tests are conclusive tells me that the model being tested isn't 100% accurate or suficient testing devices have yet to be developed. To throw out the whole theory pursuant to these problems seems ridiculous. Harvey surmised a great deal about the human cardiovascular system; a lot of which he could not prove, only confirm with testing. Yet his works served as the foundation for modern biology of the heart and blood vessels. If he had adopted the "prove it" or "consensus" standard then his theories would never have come to pass and biology would have been set back another century.

I'm not suggesting that we need to immediately accept any viable theory as fact. The fact remains that throughout history people have resisted perfectly viable scientific theories for reasons that have nothing to do with science. It's human nature. I have no problem with people who are not persuaded by the evidence on its merits; but the second someone mentions economics then they are not critically evaluating that evidence, they are resisting it. And if that's not bad science I don't know what is.

Nelson kept an eye on the civilians at Copenhagen when he fire bombed the city as well... 'cept he was blind in that eye of course.

The point I'm (trying to) make is that you only see what you want to see. The truth is right there in front of you, everyday. If you refuse to see it then nothing any one says will convince you. You'll just keep on being a good consumer and then, one day in the not too distant future, probably when you've passed on and its your kids (providing your sperm quality is not as affected as the Polar bear's has become) that are struggling to survive in your 'economy', there will be nothing left to consume.

Nuff said.

Thanks Joe. Keep the 'faith'

Your source is an article by Patrick Michaels author of 2 popular books using a scatter gun attack on climate change science, environmental advocates of the need to reduce greenhouse gas release, and the media treatment of both. He almost never publishs any peer reviewed work and when he does it is unlikely to be related to climate change. This is the same Patrick J. Michaels who a number of years ago published a newsletter distributed to journalists purporting to be an objective view of the science but failed to inform his audience that his newsletter was funded by Western Fuels.

The source he cites in his article is a legitimate paper that concludes as follows:



This essentially supports the Georgia Tech/NCAR study's conclusion (not Emanuel's which looked at total energy dissipation). Michaels then tacks on his own unreviewed analysis of previous hurricanes in the North Atlantic with the concluding paragraph you quoted. This is typical Michaels. If he really wants to participate in the scientific debate with this thesis, he should prepare a paper and submit it for peer review where his data and methodology can be considered. Instead, he is more anxious to continue to muddy the public debate about the science.

You're right, I haven't been keeping a close eye on this particular issue. But knowing about it now, I can concede that polar bears are facing extinction. As far as environmental issues, however, this is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself, which is why, until now, I have paid it no mind.

On the point of "consensus", I don't look for 100% agreement on the subject. That would just about be impossible, even with the inarguable body of evidence.

I do believe the sky is blue because of the refraction color of water, yes.

And I agree that the Earth is warming...currently. The body of evidence I have seen, and the degree of consensus amongst the experts is such that it is hard to refute the theory. Where the consensus falls down is in these two points:

1) Global warming is more than just a cyclical trend (a sizable portion of scientists believe it is just that).
2) Pollution is the cause of global warming (Mars is warming too Link, and other planets are facing unusual climate variations. It is difficult to believe all of these are unrelated, and since none of the others have to worry about pollution...)

When the scientists cannot even agree, then the only thing that can be done is to weigh the risks of inaction versus too much action. If human-induced global warming is just a hoax, then I certainly don't want to send our economy spirally down the tubes. On the other hand, if it is the crisis that Moif believes, then the economy is certainly of little consequence.

I agree it is something to pay close attention to, and if substantial (not conclusive) testing can lend credence to the claim, then change is needed. I just don't believe that the body of evidence is there for the radical changes many environmental groups are calling for.

Moif, I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of me. I had thought by now I had made it clear that my mind is open. By all means, educate me. Yes, I will probably try to refute your arguments, but at the same time I will admit when I have none. And who knows, you might just change my mind.

I take it from your silence concerning my offer that you are not going to take me up on it.

Hmmm...perhaps his was not the best source to have used. Not that his arguments are invalid, but I concede they don't carry as great a weight as other articles.