Reply With Quote
Ok, so if someone builds a city where a glacier currently is after the melt we could have a large earthquake as an issue even though there is no recorded history of such an event.
I'll keep that in mind.
As for Hurricanes... Adapt... You know they are coming... don't live there...
If you do live there... leave before it gets there...
Don't be that idiot from Austin Powers standing in front of the steam roller.
Warmer water increases frequency and ferocity of Hurricanes.
Nothing we can do to stop the ocean from heating up if it does.
Adapt or die.
I choose adapt.
Make your own choice.
Ok, so if someone builds a city where a glacier currently is after the melt we could have a large earthquake as an issue even though there is no recorded history of such an event.
I'll keep that in mind.
Exactly...
I would be more worried about the pine tree groing so fast in the soil that was under 2 miles of ice before the melt that it impales you.
More myths. Warmer SSTs do not increase the frequency of hurricanes. SST have been linked to the intensity of hurricanes, but they are only one of the many factors that attribute to a hurricanes strength.
Last years hurricane season was just as attributable to a lack of winds in the tropics which allowed low pressure system formation as it was to higher SSTs. In addtion, there is a natural pattern of increased hurricane activity that we have entered which involves larger cycles that has absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change.
I'm bored, someone step up to the plate.
Excuse me, I meant ferocity. The amount of systems kicked off of africa that have the potential to become hurricanes are unrelated.
I think you will find though, that % of storms that are kicked off that become hurricane stregth goes up because of higher water temperature.
One thing I found interesting in the condensed CNN online story is that ocean temps are reaching what was recorded 130,000 years ago. While, like Manny, I've always been skeptical about human influence (I just think while we have contributed, it is not as large of an impact as others would have us believe), I wonder what that recorded history can tell us as to what can be expected in the near future.
We just don't know.
That's the entire point.
700 years ago the earth was warm... then cooled Waaaay down for 300 years then warmed back up.
I think we are in for more warming personally and I think you can determine how hot it is going to be by looking directly at the heat lamp that is 93 million miles away.
Increased solar activity?
Warmer.
Decreased?
Colder.
Not really hard to figure out.
Find out what the sun is going to do next and you'll know how warm it is going to be.
No. SSTs play a much larger role once a hurricane has already formed. The most important factor early in a tropical cyclones life is wind shear or lack there of rather.
Take look at the storm that hit Portugal last year. It was in water that was colder than what hurricanes are supposed to be able to form in, yet it was sustained by atmostpheric conditions that overcame the water tempatures. The name of the storm escapes me, but it is a good example of how many factors there are that go far beyond surface heating of the ocean.
I know humans have influenced the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Thats pretty much undoutbable. But the way climate change is presented is pure bull most of the time.
Ok, I'll have to read up on that. Makes sense, because you have huge some of the biggest storms on earth up north where the water is pretty freaking cold. But water temperature is an integral part of the system for strengthening a hurricane in the gulf. I'll have to look back... I believe you agreed there.
I believe in superstorms. I mean... we really dont have that much of a control. Recorded history is very short in the grand scheme of things and there are storm deposits in the rock record that must have been created by things MUCH greater than what we have seen.
Who knows the symphony of events that have to be in tune to create one of these things?
It's all very complicated and will make your head spin, but increased CO2 levels have changed the earth's rotation around the sun..
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year. ice age cycle.
Secondly, the recent hurrican seasons are not directly related to climate change and the vast majorirty of meterologists/climatologists will tell you the same thing, so that argument flies out the door.Your contention here is laughable. Especially since we ran out of named hurricanes last season. The truth is we don't know exactly how warmer climate affects things like wind sheer which feed and guide hurricanes, but what we do know is that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable wide-spread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, beating the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree Celsius and we had a record number of deadly hurricanes. Excuse me it I don't fall for your pseudo-intellectual, meterology mombo-jumbo bull like the 'Boobs' in the Club, but I'll believe my eyes over your opinion any day of the week.
[/QUOTE]
Mother Nature is not going to like what you are saying about her. Dumb butt
it isn't humans what is causing what is going on but just nature. Funny,
you will accept evolution, except when it comes to evolution, then it is all
us humans that cause the problems. Ever heard of the Ice Age?
[/QUOTE]It's all very complicated and will make your head spin, but increased CO2 levels have changed the earth's rotation around the sun..
Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year. ice age cycle.
I cant believe you posted this crap. You cant possibly believe this.
I cant believe you posted this crap. You cant possibly believe this.
All the links and cooresponding supporting data can be found on Wikipedia
Last edited by Nbadan; 03-27-2006 at 05:11 PM.
Global warming is a myth.
At least if I believe the phrase above, I don't feel guitly driving around in my Tahoe.
Last edited by smeagol; 03-27-2006 at 05:07 PM.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_6How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes - in other words - is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?
During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...&tstamp=200512How do hurricanes vary during warm and cool AMO cycles?
The AMO is thought to strongly influence the incidence of intense hurricanes, which more than double during the years when the warm phase of the AMO. For example, an average of 1.5 intense (category 3, 4, and 5) hurricanes per year formed in the Atlantic during the last cool phase of the AMO, 1970-1994, while 4.1 intense hurricanes/year formed during the current warm phase (1995 - 2005). The number of tropical storms and weak hurricanes do not change much between cool and warm AMO periods.
What causes the AMO, and can we predict it?
The causes of the AMO are not well-understood, but some "coupled" computer models that simulate the behavior of both the atmosphere and the ocean are beginning to shed light on this. One of the leading theories is that changes in the ocean's salt content causes a speed up or slow down of the Gulf Stream, due to the fact that density differences between lighter fresh water and heavier salty water drive weaker and stronger ocean currents, respectively. This circulation (called the "thermohaline circulation") is thought to cause the warm phase of the AMO and warmer Atlantic SSTs when it speeds up, and cooler SSTs and a cool AMO phase when it slows down. It is also possible, but less likely, that changes in atmospheric circulation cause the AMO. We are a long way from being able to predict when a particular phase of the AMO will begin or end. The last warm phase lasted for 44 years. The current cycle began in 1995, so it may not be until 2040 that the current active period of hurricane activity dies down.
What influence does global warming have on the AMO?
Since the instrument record extends back for only two cycles of the AMO, it is difficult to say if the record warmth in the current AMO cycle is unusual. It has been observed that the tropical North Atlantic SSTs have warmed approximately 0.3°C over the past 100 years due to global warming. However, the current thinking of climate experts is that global warming should act to dump increased fresh water into the North Atlantic and reduce the speed of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. This would lead to a decrease in Atlantic SSTs, and a reduction of intense hurricanes. Either global warming hasn't acted to dump enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to affect the thermohaline circulation, or else the theory is wrong!
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.htmlDr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University, who is famous for his successful long-range hurricane predictions and nearly 50 years of hurricane research and forecasting, submitted his critique to Science for publication, but the journal rejected it, since the do ent had already been published (on Dr. Gray's web site). Journals typically do not publish material that has been published elsewhere. In his abstract, Dr. Gray says: "I do not agree that global Category 4-5 tropical cyclone activity has been rising, except in the Atlantic over the last 11 years. The recent Atlantic upsurge has explanations other than global temperature rise".
Dr. Chris Landsea, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, chaired a standing-room only session exploring the hurricanes/global warming connection at the 2006 meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He presented a talk with additional evidence supporting Dr. Gray's position.
Dr. John Knaff, a hurricane researcher at the NOAA/Cooperative Ins ute for Research in the Atmosphere Colorado State University, has performed an extensive re-analysis of Northwest Pacific typhoons, and questions the intensity estimates used by Webster et al. for typhoons during the period 1966-1987. His paper, "Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind-Pressure Relationships" has been accepted for publication to Weather and Forecasting, and will probably be published in late 2006.
My opinion? No dumbass, their opinions.
Good reading Manny, thanks.
A total non sequitor. But I tell you what Dan, provide me with the views of respected meterologists or climatologists who study hurricanes and see link. Your opinion and my opinion don't really matter but the opinions of people who are actually out there studying these things do.
So find some legitimate studies or scientists providing theories on the link that provide proof and we'll debate it here. No spin, no bull name calling, just science.
Ok?
Respected Scientific Opinon over that of Shill Meterologists, Imagine thatThe strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.
The results shown in Figure 1 are based on a simulation study carried out by Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). In this study hurricanes were simulated for a climate warming as projected to occur with a substantial build-up of atmospheric CO2. An increase of intensity of about one-half category on the Saffir-Simpson scale was simulated for an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded).
NM he's back with more bogus science.
Doc Brown has a Delorian that goes 88 mph that is just as useful as their simulator project.The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.
The results shown in Figure 1 are based on a simulation study carried out by Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). In this study hurricanes were simulated for a climate warming as projected to occur with a substantial build-up of atmospheric CO2. An increase of intensity of about one-half category on the Saffir-Simpson scale was simulated for an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded).
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?tstamp=200603La Niña continues to influence our weather, and has strengthened some in the past month, according the the latest discussion issued today by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. They predict that La Niña will continue at least until June, and probably into October. If this prediction holds true, we are likely to see another very active hurricane season in the Atlantic, as wind shear is typically quite low over the Atlantic during La Niña conditions. Dr. Bill Gray's forecast (issued December 6) is calling for 17 tropical storms (average is 11), 9 hurricanes (average is 6), and 5 intense hurricanes (average is 2-3). It will be interesting to see if the stronger than expected La Niña conditions will cause him to raise his numbers in his forthcoming April 4 forecast for the 2006 hurricane season. The NOAA hurricane forecast will be issued in mid-May.
A 2005 study published in the journal Nature suggests that storm intensity and duration is linked to the recent ocean warming trends associated with global warming. Scientists tracked measurements of the destructive power of storms, termed the Power Dissipation Index (PDI), since 1950. The study, which combined each storm’s maximum wind speeds and storm duration, found that during the last 30 years, the destructive power of storms has doubled in the Atlantic and Pacific.¹
Most of this has occurred during the past 10 years when global average surface ocean temperatures were at record levels. Thus far, scientific evidence does not link worldwide storm frequency with global warming. Individual ocean basins have multiyear cycles of storm activity. While the total number of storms in the tropics remained similar through time, the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased over the past 30 years, according to a 2005 paper in the journal Science.
Union Of Concerned Scientist
Wait, did you just say the opinions of the people I posted are not respected? Chris Landsea was a memeber of the International Panel on Climate Change or the leading reasearch body in regards to global warming. Dr Gray is probably the best Hurricane forecaster in the world.
The studies that you linked to are viewed in a very critical light on the pages I linked to, but I'll provide you with the actual information as to why.
An 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes? Not!
Here's where the critics of Webster et al. differ. Let's look at the criticisms one ocean basin at a time. First: the Southern Hemisphere oceans, and the part of the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere. These regions are responsible for 25% of the world's Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Dr. Gray criticizes the quality of the data in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere ocean basins during the period 1975-1989, remarking: "In the late 1970s I visited all the global tropical cyclone centers and observed their satellite capabilities and the training of their forecasters as part of a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) tropical cyclone trip that I was commissioned to make. The satellite tools and forecaster training in the tropical cyclone regions of the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere during the 1975-1989 period was not adequate for the task of objectively distinguishing Category 4-5 hurricanes from Category 3 hurricanes or to always be able to confidently distinguish Category 4-5 hurricanes from Category 1-2 hurricanes." Dr. Gray does not provide any details about how how this lack of training could have led to a systematic error in classifying too few storms at Category 4 and 5 intensity. However, Dr. Landsea did cite an example of this in his talk at the 2006 American Meteorological Society meeting--for a number of years after 1974's Tropical Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, the Australians never assigned an intensity higher than Tracy to any storm because they believed Tracy was the strongest a storm could be in the Australian region. Tracy was a weak Category 4 cyclone with 135 mph winds and a 954 mb pressure. This was a false assumption, as many cyclones stronger than Tracy have formed in Australian waters.
This brings up the most serious weakness in the Webster et al. paper--they do very little discussion of the uncertainty in hurricane intensity measurements. Hurricane intensity is characterized by a 1-minute measurement of maximum sustained winds at ten meters above the surface. In practice, this quan y is virtually never measured, but must be inferred indirectly from other measurements. All of these inferred measurements of wind speeds have errors. Satellite estimates of hurricane intensity are often wrong by a full category on the Saffir-Simpson scale--or even two categories. This is particularly true when there are only two geostationary satellites covering the Earth, as was the case for much of the 1970s, and part of the 1980s. I learned this the hard way during my stint with the Hurricane Hunters when I flew into Hurricane Hugo in 1989 expecting a Category 3 hurricane based on satellite estimates. The problem was that one of the GOES satellites had failed earlier that year, leaving just one satellite to cover all of the U.S. and Atlantic Ocean. This one satellite was positioned much farther west in order to see all the way to California, and thus had a poor, oblique view of hurricanes out over the Atlantic. If a satellite can't see all the way to the bottom of the eye of a hurricane because of an oblique viewing angle, it will come up with an eye temperature that is too cool, and thus an intensity estimate that is too low. Hugo turned out to be a Category 5, and made us pay dearly for our mistake. Similarly, a systematic underestimation of hurricane intensities in the 1970s is quite possible, due to the oblique viewing angle that the relatively few geostationary satellites afforded during that period.
Furthermore, Dr. Landsea argued, the technique used to perform satellite estimation in all ocean basins of hurricane intensity (the Dvorak technique) did not even get invented until 1972--two years after the start of the data used by Webster et al. It wasn't until 1984 that the Dvorak technique was extended to infrared satellite imagery. So, between 1972 and 1984, all satellite hurricane intensity estimates were done on visible satellite imagery, and were unavailable at night. In addition, measurement errors from the first generation of infrared satellite instruments was much higher, since their resolution was a relatively poor 9 km--compared to the 4 km resolution of today's instruments. Dr. Landsea called for a major re-analysis effort of the old satellite photos from the 1970s and 1980s to try to quantify some of these errors. He argued that his preliminary look at old satellite images from the Northern Indian Ocean from 1970 to 1989 had already revealed five additional storms that may have been Category 4 or 5. Webster et al. found only one Category 4 or 5 hurricane for this time period there. Dr. Landsea suggested that until a full re-analysis took place in all ocean basins, the quality of the historical global hurricane intensity data was not high enough to be able to see a possible increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.
Figure 5. Number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Indian Ocean and Southwest Pacific Ocean (off the east coast of Australia) since 1970. A a rather dramatic rise in recent years is apparent. Data from 1970-2002 are taken from a reanalysis of available data from Australia, Fiji, and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, done by Charlie Neumann. All the data used in the Webster et al. study are available from Dr. Judith Curry's web page.
Dr. Holland spoke after Dr. Landsea, and agreed that a major re-analysis effort was needed in order to help quantify some of the errors in hurricane intensities. He rebutted Dr. Landsea's arguments by pointing out that given the very large rise in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Oceans, about 50% of all Category 1 and 2 hurricanes would have to be re-analyzed as Category 4 and 5 storms to invalidate their results in that region. While acknowledging the the data was bad in the 1970s, he maintained that nobody thought it was that bad.
Summary of the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean data
If we restrict ourselves to just looking at the Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean data since 1989--the date when everyone agrees that the data quality is reasonable--there is not enough data to be sure of any kind of trend (Figure 5). So until better intensity estimates of hurricanes in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere ocean basins from 1970-1989 are available, one should view the results of Webster et al. with caution for these regions. Still, there is such a large increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes that it is unlikely that re-analysis will find that all of this increase in unreal.
I guess it is progress that the argument has changed from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming is good for you".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
