Here you go Manny...Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes

[Sec24Row7]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html

Tuesday, April 25, 2006; Posted: 10:26 a.m. EDT (14:26 GMT)


Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 77 years.
MONTEREY, California (Reuters) -- The record Atlantic hurricane season last year can be attributed to global warming, several top experts, including a leading U.S. government storm researcher, said on Monday.

"The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now," said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Holland told a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms that form in the Caribbean are "increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw."

His conclusion will be debated throughout the week-long conference, as other researchers present opposing papers that say changing wind and temperature conditions in the tropics are due to natural events, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions clouding the Earth.

Many of the experts gathered in the coastal city of Monterey, California, are federal employees. The Bush administration contends global warming is an unproven theory.

While many of the conference's 500 scientists seem to agree that a warming trend in the tropics is causing more and stronger hurricanes than usual, not all agree that global warming is to blame.

Some, like William Gray, a veteran hurricane researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, attributed the warming to natural cycles.

Gray said he believes salinity buildups and movements with ocean currents cause warming and cooling cycles. He predicted the Caribbean water will continue to warm for another five to 10 years, then start cooling.

More warming to come
Whatever the cause, computer projections indicate the warming to date -- about one degree Fahrenheit (half a degree Celsius) in tropical water -- is "the tip of the iceberg" and the water will warm three to four times as much in the next century, said Thomas Knutson, explaining projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey.

Adam Lea, a postdoctoral student at Britain's University College London in Dorking, Surrey, presented research based on British, German, Russian and Canadian studies that concludes half of the increased hurricane activity in the tropics could be attributed to global warming.

Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the federal research center, said tropical storm anomalies in the 1940s and 1950s can be explained by natural variability.

But he said carbon dioxide started changing traceable patterns in the 1970s and by the early 1990s, the atmospheric results were affecting the storm numbers and intensities.

"What we're seeing right now in global climate temperature is a signature of climate change," said Holland, a native of Australia. "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases."

Hurricane Katrina, which tore onto the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts on August 29, was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 77 years and the costliest ever, with property damages estimated at $75 billion.

This year, the weather service's Tropical Prediction Center expects more hurricanes than usual, but not as many as last year's record 14.

[Yonivore]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html

Tuesday, April 25, 2006; Posted: 10:26 a.m. EDT (14:26 GMT)

Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 77 years.
So, what was happening 78 years ago that this couldn't top it?

Oh, and has it occurred to anyone that because of a growing population and development on exposed coats, that any hurricane is likely to be more costly than those of yesterday? a hundred years ago, hurricane Andrew could have barreled across Florida without causing much of a problem.

250 years or longer ago, Katrina would have done the same in the Mississippi River Delta...and, a forgotten storm probably did just that.

[smeagol]

People negate global warming because they want to continue living comfortably. We are selfish fuckers.

[Sec24Row7]

People negate global warming because there is nothing we can do about it.

[smeagol]

People negate global warming because there is nothing we can do about it.
Is that a fact?

[Ocotillo]

As long as global warming continues (and these things happen in cycles due to the carbon cycle, we are just accelerating it compared to pre-man times), the folks in Florida won't have to worry about hurricanes. Florida won't exist as it will be part of the Atlantic Ocean.

[La Migra]

People negate global warming because they want to continue living comfortably. We are selfish fuckers.

Selfish indeed. :rolleyes

[SA210]

People negate global warming because there is nothing we can do about it.
Credible Link?

[smeagol]

Selfish indeed. :rolleyes
You don't think people are selfish?

[Sec24Row7]

Credible Link?


How about my B.S. in Geosciences?

[ChumpDumper]

Did anyone see the Nova show where meteorologists put forth the contention that the global warming effect of greenhouse gasses has til now been blunted by the reflective properties of small-particle pollution? The evidence they used to prove it were temperature fluctuations in the no-fly days after 9/11. Very interesting stuff.

[Sec24Row7]

Any other hypothesis would have been thrown out by now.

But no... for man caused global warming they come up with a new theory every year why we haven't seen as big a change as everyone predicts.

It's just junk science.

Global warming happens.

Global cooling happens.

DO we have any significant effect on global temperature? No one has been able to say anything other than "Models Predict" that we do and that temperature will rise by a degree or two or 4 100 years from now. (however they manipulate their model)

Jesus.

My weatherman can't tell me it is going to rain tommorow.

They can predict global temperature in 100 years?

[xrayzebra]

Credible Link?

Common sense, dummy.

[xrayzebra]

As long as global warming continues (and these things happen in cycles due to the carbon cycle, we are just accelerating it compared to pre-man times), the folks in Florida won't have to worry about hurricanes. Florida won't exist as it will be part of the Atlantic Ocean.

Huh! You are kidding aren't you? Carbon cycle, now that's a new one.
Florida underwater. Heck, half of it has always been underwater, they
are called swamps, like Louisiana. :lol I have some property in Florida I
will sell you, interested?

[Yonivore]

People negate global warming because they want to continue living comfortably. We are selfish fuckers.
Maybe they "negate" global warming because it's a natural occurrence to which we must adapt not try to control through onerous, costly, and ineffective measures such as the Kyoto Protocol.

[Vashner]

So the other 4 times the ice melted it was man made too .. millions of years before we where even driving SUV's?

Unless every democrats and leftist is going to sell there car I don't want to hear it...

The President has set us on a course for replacing oil anyway. Saudi hates his guts right now.. so be happy and just worry about the future.

Cause there ain't shit we can do about gas right now. Till every last drop is used up and we (forum members) will be either old or dead by then.

[Sec24Row7]

The ice has melted and come back a hell of a lot more than 4 times Vashner...

I keep seeing you use that number and I have no idea where you got it.

There have been numerous times of transgression and recession of the oceans in the worlds history as a result of ice formation and thaw.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's the link to the Nova program:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Description: "Dimming the Sun" investigates the discovery that the sunlight reaching Earth has been growing dimmer, which may seem surprising given all the international concern over global warming. At first glance, less sunlight might hardly seem to matter when our planet is stewing in greenhouse gases. But the discovery of global dimming has led several scientists to revise their models of the climate and how fast it's changing. According to one recent and highly controversial model, the worst-case warming scenario could be worse than anyone has predicted. "Dimming the Sun" unravels this baffling climate conundrum and the implications for Earth's future.

To find out what global dimming means for the fate of the planet, NOVA reports on the findings of the world's top climate detectives, including an American scientist who found a grim but crucial opportunity immediately following September 11, 2001, when the entire U.S. airline fleet was grounded for three days. This presented a unique opportunity to study the effects of airplane vapor trails on the atmosphere (see The Contrail Effect). Comparing changes in the daily temperature range showed that the absence of dimming from aircraft pollution alone made a marked difference to the temperature. This result hints at how much the effects of atmospheric pollution had been underestimated.

Working in Israel, Dr. Gerald Stanhill was one of the first to discover the surprising fact that less solar energy is reaching the Earth's surface. While his measurements were met with skepticism, a review of worldwide data by Stanhill and a German researcher demonstrated that during the 1980s and early '90s, sunlight reaching Earth's surface had dropped just about everywhere. Halfway around the world, independent studies by Australian scientists confirmed this disturbing diagnosis. (For more, see Discoveries in Global Dimming.)

Scientists have long known that increasing air pollution—the smog that clouds urban skies—endangers our respiratory health. But they had underestimated the impact of pollution on the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Some scientists now believe that global dimming may also disturb rainfall patterns such as the Asian monsoon. If they are right, global dimming may be one of many factors that contributed to severe droughts and famines in Africa during the 1980s.

The good news is that pollution controls have slowed and possibly even halted global dimming during the last decade. The bad news—and the ironic twist in NOVA's story—is that without pollution, more sunlight is reaching Earth, revealing the full impact of global warming. Although all climate models have important uncertainties, the unsettling implication is that, with dimming fading away in many regions, global temperatures may rise even faster than most models have predicted.

[Vashner]

A total melt vs the normal ice phases. I am talking about the caps not just the sheets on North America.

I'll agree that pollution is a contributor. But I won't accept any Bush arguments. Kyoto was going to give China a pass and that's just not fair.

Plus he's said we need to get off the addiction which was a huge thing to say as far as setting goals for the future.

If you followed around a lot of these people.. Sean Penn, Clooney.. you would see they burn millions of gallons of gas on there various Jet's, Yachts etc.

Clooney burns more gas at his italian villa in a week than we do in a year. Yet who's fucking crying? lefties...

NONE of which are giving up the keys. Except for a few hardcores.

What I want to see is less finger pointing and more creative solutions.

It's not you man it's the others. You have to remember this forum is drowned out with like 99% leftist posts. So we just come in here (right wingers) for occasional air strikes then go back to base.

[Sgt. Toomey]

Vashner, you would need three promotions to be an asshole.

[Vashner]

Vashner, you would need three promotions to be an asshole.

GS 16? I don't even think there is such a rank. That's like SES level 1.

Your gonna pay me 102 grand? Where do I report?

http://www.opm.gov/ses/


The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136, November 24, 2003) established a new performance-based pay system for members of the Senior Executive The new SES pay range has a minimum rate of basic pay equal to 120 percent of the rate for GS-15, step 1, and the maximum rate of basic pay is equal to the rate for level III of the Executive Schedule. However, for any agency certified under 5 U.S.C. 5307(d) as having a performance appraisal system which, as designed and applied, makes meaningful distinctions based on relative performance, the maximum rate of basic pay will be the rate for level II of the Executive Schedule.

The President's Executive order adjusts the minimum rate of basic pay for the SES rate range to be consistent with the increase in the minimum rate of basic pay for senior-level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376 ($109,808 in 2006). The applicable maximum rate of basic pay for the SES is $165,200 (EX-II) for SES members covered by a certified SES performance appraisal system and $152,000 (EX-III) for SES members covered by an SES performance appraisal system that has not been certified. An SES member at the minimum rate of the SES rate range must receive a pay increase of 2.1 percent in January 2006, since an SES member may not receive less than the minimum rate of the SES rate range. An increase in pay necessary to ensure that an SES member's rate of basic pay remains within the SES rate range is not considered a pay adjustment for the purpose of applying the 12-month rule.

[Yonivore]

Well, happy belated Earth Day...sorry, it just didn't get put on my calendar.

Patrick at Ankle Biting Pundits (http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=117) marked Earth Day in his own way, by pointing out that Americans aren't buying the Chicken Little argument.

The WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008277) told us the ways in which the world is getting cleaner:


Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute.

Mr. Hayward compiles the "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators" published around Earth Day each year by PRI and the American Enterprise Institute. It serves as an instructive antidote for the doom and gloom that normally pervades environmental coverage, especially of late.
Don't believe 'em? Well, here's the Index (http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/06_enviroindex/00_features.html), itself...check it out.

And, the Commons Blog (http://commonsblog.org/archives/000663.php) notes a NYT article that suggests the alarmist campaign is "going overboard," and includes more scientific skepticism than the Times usually shows.

I used to mark Earth Day by laughing at the news reports of Earth Day events which invariably showed scenes of Earth Day celebrants racking up dumpster upon dumpster of waste (although I'm sure it was all biodegradable), most of which didn't even make it into the trash cans.

The irony was not lost on me.

[smeagol]

Maybe they "negate" global warming because it's a natural occurrence to which we must adapt not try to control through onerous, costly, and ineffective measures such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Reality is neither you, not scarecrow, nor my man Xray, nor the scientific community agree on why the Earth is getting warmer.

Nevertheless, the fact is we pollute the hell out this blessed planet we live in and I don't see any harm in trying to limit that pollution. Kyoto or no Kyoto agreement.

[Yonivore]

Reality is neither you, not scarecrow, nor my man Xray, nor the scientific community agree on why the Earth is getting warmer.
It may well be...but, the argument is over whether we're causing it and even whether there is anything we can do about it...except, of course, what animals have done since life spawned on this planet -- ADAPT!


Nevertheless, the fact is we pollute the hell out this blessed planet we live in and I don't see any harm in trying to limit that pollution. Kyoto or no Kyoto agreement.
Speak for yourself, we (the US) are doing our part -- as posted previously:


Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute.

Mr. Hayward compiles the "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators" published around Earth Day each year by PRI and the American Enterprise Institute. It serves as an instructive antidote for the doom and gloom that normally pervades environmental coverage, especially of late.

[Duff McCartney]

Speak for yourself, we (the US) are doing our part -- as posted previously:

Bullshit...nobody is doing their part. We are doing something..but not nearly as much as what we could be doing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yeah, it's like

GWB, or Rick Perry, or CEO of TXU will say "we're going to cut emissions" but then they take 5 years, and never reach their goal, and just because they say "we are still working on it" all the sheeple just follow

[smeagol]

Speak for yourself, we (the US) are doing our part -- as posted previously:

We, the World . . . we humanity . . . we the people . . . we the dudes who populate this planet . . . we tha nations of the world . . .

And no, the US is not doing enough.

[Yonivore]

Bullshit...nobody is doing their part. We are doing something..but not nearly as much as what we could be doing.

Yeah, it's like

GWB, or Rick Perry, or CEO of TXU will say "we're going to cut emissions" but then they take 5 years, and never reach their goal, and just because they say "we are still working on it" all the sheeple just follow

We, the World . . . we humanity . . . we the people . . . we the dudes who populate this planet . . . we tha nations of the world . . .
You people are obviously retarded.

Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute.


And no, the US is not doing enough.
Name one country that's done more. Canada, a Kyoto signatory, had their emissions go up.

Some do; some jabber about doing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So if we have a million terrorists, and "reduce them by 50% over the course of 36 years", do you think neocons will approve or dissaprove of the fact that 500,000 terrorists remain?

Therein lies the fallacy of your argument.

[Sec24Row7]

How about a protocol that requires us to seriously hurt our economy to cut terrorists in our country down to 30% of their current levels but lets other countries triple theirs?

That make any more sense?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No, it doesn't. All I was trying to say is that it's silly to argue with the statement:

"U.S. has made actions and reduced emissions" or even "U.S. leads the globe in reducing emissions"

And the reason is because reduction does not mean we've really acheived or accomplished anything. It can...but chances are it doesnt.
if there's 1mil particles of smog per unit air in the country, and we're down to 500thousand particles of smog per unit air (over the course of THIRTY SIX YEARS), are we still doing any better?

It's the year 2006. Greed and sheeple are preventing our race from acheiving what should already be done.

[Yonivore]

So if we have a million terrorists, and "reduce them by 50% over the course of 36 years", do you think neocons will approve or dissaprove of the fact that 500,000 terrorists remain?
It means we've cut the terrorist population in half and will continue until they're all dead...what have the other countries done?


Therein lies the fallacy of your argument.
No, here's the fallacy of your argument.

Terrorists are not a by-product of progress and therefore, are not something that must be tolerated. They can all be killed without harming the economic security of any nation.

Reducing emissions beyond what we've already accomplished will take exponentially more innovation and money than can be expended right now without seriously compromising technological progress or economic security. I say we wait until the rest of the world does their part, we've done enough and, besides, we have other priorities right now.

Let Canada comply with their commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Go Harass India, China, and that Chavez guy down in Venezuela for a change but, for God's sake, leave the U.S. alone for change.

For once, I want the enviro-whackoes to quit driving us into expensive, ineffective emissions-control measures while letting the rest of the developing world off the hook. We've cleaned up our air, let everyone else clean theirs while you pricks harangue them.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Terrorists are not the by product of progress?

So I guess its easier to say they're a byproduct of the west totally douching their country and ignoring their religious zeal and holy sites, all in the name of "advancing" their own agenda (not progressing, that would be fundamentally semantically different....)

I did not mean to invoke your neoconness with my terrorist comment. And your very first sentence of your response proved what I was getting at: We will not and should not stop until all is eliminated. Just cuz we've cut them in half, does not mean we're saints.

Yes, even ultra ultra LEFTY left leftist lefttty liberals like me can pat america on the back and say "good job guys" for cutting those emissions 50% in Thirty Six Years. However, anyone besides sheeple neocons will realize that it should not stop there.

50%? Big fucking deal...it's 2006 and we're supposed to be the best country in the world.

And "best" applies to other facets of reality besides waging war and changing cultures.

We should be leading the globe in reducing emissions by such an outstanding degree that other countries look to us as an inspiration (you know, like the kinda crap they fed me while i was a kid, the facade they implanted in my brain of what my country truely stood for)

[/END]

[Yonivore]

Terrorists are not the by product of progress?
No, they're a byproduct of insanity that preys on an oppressed, uninformed, brainwashed mass of middle east youth.


So I guess its easier to say they're a byproduct of the west totally douching their country and ignoring their religious zeal and holy sites, all in the name of "advancing" their own agenda (not progressing, that would be fundamentally semantically different....)
No, that'd be wrong too. For that to be true, all Muslims and Arabs would be terrorists.


I did not mean to invoke your neoconness with my terrorist comment. And your very first sentence of your response proved what I was getting at: We will not and should not stop until all is eliminated. Just cuz we've cut them in half, does not mean we're saints.
Who says we're stopping? Just because we don't spend every penny of GDP on environmental concerns doesn't mean we're stopping.


Yes, even ultra ultra LEFTY left leftist lefttty liberals like me can pat america on the back and say "good job guys" for cutting those emissions 50% in Thirty Six Years. However, anyone besides sheeple neocons will realize that it should not stop there.

50%? Big fucking deal...it's 2006 and we're supposed to be the best country in the world.
Who's done more? No one...that means we are leading the world in reducing emissions. Back to my doing instead of talking about doing thing, you know?


And "best" applies to other facets of reality besides waging war and changing cultures.

We should be leading the globe in reducing emissions by such an outstanding degree that other countries look to us as an inspiration (you know, like the kinda crap they fed me while i was a kid, the facade they implanted in my brain of what my country truely stood for)[/END]
We are leading the globe in reducing emissions by such an outstanding degree that other countries [should] look to us as an inspiration. Again, I ask, who's done more?

[scott]

I work for a fucking oil company and I not even I can get a boner about defending pollution like some of you quacks.

[Yonivore]

I work for a fucking oil company and I not even I can get a boner about defending pollution like some of you quacks.
Who's defending pollution?

[Sec24Row7]

Who's defending pollution?

[Yonivore]

Who's defending pollution?
I think scott was drunk last night. Look at his sentence composition.

[MannyIsGod]

There have been a number of sharp debates on the hurricane/global warming issue, and this controversy has really been difficult for the hurricane science community. There were some rather uncomfortable arguments between some of the scientists at talks on Monday, but a more civilized debate last night during a panel discussion featuring four of the experts who've published papers on the subject. The discussion lasted nearly three hours, and could have lasted much longer, as only about 20 of the 60 questions posed by the audience of over 300 were answered. I'll have a detailed look at what was said in a blog next week. Contrary to what one might expect from the headline of yesterday's CNN story from Reuters (Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes), hurricane experts at this conference are very divided about this issue. There is a lot of very confusing and conflicting information to consider, and the science is a long way from being settled.


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=346&tstamp=200604

I didn't see this post untill now, but there you go.

[scott]

http://www.planetnintendo.com/thewarpzone/boxes/CaptainPlanet.jpg