Turns Out That Global Warming Isn't Just A Liberal Conspiracy After All

[Sec24Row7]

No self respecting scientist could ever tell you that the earth has never warmed up before.

They will tell you that HUMANITY DRIVEN global warming is a myth.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, You keep linking to pages that cite the Webster study, but that study has serious flaws!!!!

This paper’s conclusions are partially based on an analysis of poorly do ented and
biased tropical cyclone (TC) maximum wind (Vmax) data from the Northwest (NW)
Pacific. This study presents a sum of each tropical cyclone’s maximum winds - a very
hard measurement to realistically obtain over a 3-5 decade period of changing
maximum wind measurement techniques. The author then cubes these maximum wind
speeds (Vmax
3) of questionable accuracy. Such a cubing process greatly exaggerates
any errors in the original Vmax estimate. For instance, a TC with a 40 ms-1 maximum
wind speed and a plus/minus 10% margin of error (44 m/s versus 36 m/s) in Vmax wind
leads to a 80 percent high vs. low difference in Vmax
3.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu...l_comments.pdf

The initial errors in the data are exponintialy greater in the study because of the computation methods.

[smeagol]

I guess it is progress that the argument has changed from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming is good for you".

I say, who needs all that ice in Antartica anyways?

[Oh, Gee!!]

We should turn the Rain Forest into a parking lot for our Yukons and Hummers.

[MannyIsGod]

More on the errors and omission of the Webster study

This is a clearly written article by very well-respected scientists. There are, however, several substantive issues with the study. First, an informative figure illustrating the maximum potential for hurricanes as a function of SST was described by a 1988 paper by Robert Merrill en led “Environmental Influences on Hurricane Intensification” (see Figure 2 in that paper). This research was completed for the Atlantic hurricane region, but the SST thresholds should be the same for the other basins. As presented in that paper, Category 4 and 5 hurricanes require sea surface temperatures (SST) of over 27°Celsius. Thus the criteria that should be examined are anomalies in SST that result in increases of temperatures above the 27°C criteria. Category 5 hurricanes require temperatures 28°C. Has the area of SST above these thresholds increased, for example?

The Webster et al. Science article actually present a range of SST values during the respective hurricane seasons for the different hurricane basins in Figure 1 of their paper. These range from around 29.5°C for the north Indian Ocean to around 27.5°C for the north Atlantic and eastern Pacific Ocean basins. Such an analysis suggests that regardless of SST temperature trends, the north Indian Ocean should have a greater porportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Clearly, there are other factors besides SST that determine the ability of the tropical cyclones to attain Category 4 and 5 intensities as we discussed in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society. John Wiley and Sons, England, 279 pp, and Pielke, R.A., 1990: The hurricane. Routledge Press, London, England, 228 pp. Indeed, it is rare for the hurricane to attain its maximum intensity due to other limitiations. The Science article is silent on the relation between the different SSTs in the different hurricane regions with respect to the proportion that reach category 4 and 5 intensities.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=53

Same page but further down...

Finally, the same analysis, as shown by Pat Michaels (Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection), when applied to an earlier time period (starting in 1945) than in the Webster et al. Science study, indicates that a high proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes also occurred then. Webster et al. is clear as to why they chose to use the more recent era with the better data coverage. However, coverage for the Atlantic basin, for instance, is quite good since 1945 and should have been assessed against the more recent time period. The Michaels communication ideally should have been submitted to Science as a comment, so that Webster et al. would need to respond. Nonetheless, it highlights an important issue that needs to be resolved as to whether Webster et al. are analyzing the upward portion of a cyclic behavior of hurricane intensities or a real much longer-term trend.

They only took the recent information for the North Atlantic regardless of a longer running line of information for that region. However, the AMO which I mentioned before has only recently been trending upwards so the same timeframe is concurrent with an upwards swing in the AMO.

In other words, they took data from an AMO period that was warmer and are attirbuting the affect on hurricanes to something other than the AMO without comparing it to a time when the AMO was in a cooler period. It is selective data!

[MannyIsGod]

You guys can keep spouting off your cute little anacdotes or provide actual data. It is up to you.

[DarkReign]

lol

[MannyIsGod]

et’s put that in perspective. Last year, Thomas Knutson and Robert Tuleya published a modeling study showing that a 2.0ºC increase in SST maximum hurricane wind speed of about 6 percent over eighty years. That’s ten times the non-AMO warming. That means global warming is likely to be responsible, right now, for, at best, an increase of about 0.6% in hurricane wind speeds—raising a decent hurricane of 120mph to 120.7mph, a change too small to measure.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ieve-the-hype/

[Sec24Row7]

Hehehe.

You a Meteorologist?

What got you so into weather and hurricane intensity?

[Nbadan]

Chris Landsea was a memeber of the International Panel on Climate Change or the leading reasearch body in regards to global warming.

Yeah, until he resigned....quitter...

Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization
Thomas R. Knutson
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey
Robert E. Tuleya
Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Previous studies have found that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. The present study explores the sensitivity of this result to the choice of climate model used to define the CO2-warmed environment and to the choice of convective parameterization used in the nested regional model that simulates the hurricanes. Approximately 1300 five-day idealized simulations are performed using a higher-resolution version of the GFDL hurricane prediction system (grid spacing as fine as 9 km, with 42 levels). All storms were embedded in a uniform 5 m s−1 easterly background flow. The large-scale thermodynamic boundary conditions for the experiments— atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles and SSTs—are derived from nine different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP2+) climate models. The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1% yr−1 CO2 increase experiments, range from about +0.8° to +2.4°C in the three tropical storm basins studied. Four different moist convection parameterizations are tested in the hurricane model, including the use of no convective parameterization in the highest resolution inner grid. Nearly all combinations of climate model boundary conditions and hurricane model convection schemes show a CO2-induced increase in both storm intensity and near-storm precipitation rates. The aggregate results, averaged across all experiments, indicate a 14% increase in central pressure fall, a 6% increase in maximum surface wind speed, and an 18% increase in average precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm center. The fractional change in precipitation is more sensitive to the choice of convective parameterization than is the fractional change of intensity. Current hurricane potential intensity theories, applied to the climate model environments, yield an average increase of intensity (pressure fall) of 8% (Emanuel) to 16% (Holland) for the high-CO2 environments. Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is 21% higher on average in the high-CO2 environments. One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

American Meterology Society

[MannyIsGod]

And why did he resign? Because of distortion of data and the use of science not for truth but for the advandcement of poltical data.

And by the way, Knutson says the following in that study

“CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come.”

One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

So how is it pratical to apply that study to last years hurricane season?

[Vashner]

The ice has melted 4 times before....
That was before man was industrialized. Bush did it... he went back in time with a F250 ford truck.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, the Knutson study used a rate of increased CO2 levels that isn't realistic

Carbon dioxide levels in the modeled atmosphere were increased at a rate of 1 percent per year. That rate led to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 80 years from now (the period Knutson and Tuleya chose to define the future climate conditions) that are more than double the levels of today.

In the real world, the concentration of carbon dioxide is growing at a rate of about 0.45 percent per year—a rate that is less than half of that presumed in the model.

It also provides the ideal environment for hurricane formation as a control. This is fine because everything is even so it will demonstrate a point, but the actual percentages of increased power cannot be applied as an actual prediction. Their study was an example that increased CO2 levels that leading to a warming trend can fuel more powerful storms but just how much is uncertain.

In other words, it may increase the instensity by 1mph on average or 10mph on average depending on how much CO2 increases and other variables.

[MannyIsGod]

To bring it all together...

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...s/landsea.html

That is text from the open letter by Chris Landsea explaining why he was quiting the IPCC. It also talks about the Knutson study you are using to prove that climate change has already affected the hurricanes we are seeing.

It points out that the study says that in 2080 - a mear 74 years from now - hurricane intensity would have increased 5%. In otherwords, a 100mph storm today would be 105mph then due to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is hardly the catastrophic storm increase you are trying to make it out to be, Dan. Furthermore, that is 3/4ths of a century IN THE FUTURE after further CO2 buildup. It has NOTHING to do with 2005.


So it all boils down to this Dan.

How does a study that reports a possible 5% increase in storm power by 2080 correspond to prove that 2005's hurricane season was in any way global warming related?

[Nbadan]

We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.

The fact that global warming exists though is now undeniable. All you have to do is look your window at the wimpy winter we just had. Snowfall in the Midwest is way off which could lead to drought in the summer on ranches and farms, lakes in the N.E. which have frozen for decades, no longer freeze, mountain glaciers in serious retreat around the globe which could lead to water shortages. That's what were facing though, add water as yet another scarce commodity to the long list of reasons that we will have much future war and pandemic.

[Sec24Row7]

Nbadan is now property of MannyisGod.

[MannyIsGod]

We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.

You're damn straight. So tell me, why do people - including you - want to present a corrolation as fact????

[MannyIsGod]

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.

We could keep this up all night, the truth is there isn't even consensus in the scientific community over whether global warming, and increased CO2 levels have any effect on Hurricane intensity, so I don't think we gonna come into any consensus here. Let's agree to disagree.

ing A! The "truth" morphed in half an hour!

The fact that global warming exists though is now undeniable. All you have to do is look your window at the wimpy winter we just had. Snowfall in the Midwest is way off which could lead to drought in the summer on ranches and farms, lakes in the N.E. which have frozen for decades, no longer freeze, mountain glaciers in serious retreat around the globe which could lead to water shortages. That's what were facing though, add water as yet another scarce commodity to the long list of reasons that we will have much future war and pandemic.

You're so full of non sequitors on this subject that it is flat out hillarious. Climate change is undenaiable, but the past winter proves nothing about climate change. And that is something you fail to understand.

[Marklar MM]

Poor polar bears.

[Nbadan]

You're damn straight. So tell me, why do people - including you - want to present a corrolation as fact????

Blah, people have been lied to some much about the very existence of global warming by paid scientific shill working for the energy lobby that they don't know what to believe anymore on global warming. Even though a proven link has yet to be established, you have to wonder was last year just a statistical anomaly? or is there, in fact, some relation between increased CO2 levels and Hurricane intensity. The future will tell.

I say, don’t buy any coastal property.

[Nbadan]

ing A! The "truth" morphed in half an hour!

The weather is unpredictable, but it is a function of larger forces that we have yet to form working scientific/mathmatical models to help us understand. I've added this cavet of unpredictablility in all of my posts.

[spurster]

You guys can keep spouting off your cute little anacdotes or provide actual data. It is up to you.

How about "fiddling while Rome burns"?

The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is melting, Greenland is melting, the sea is rising, and all of this is projected to continue while we nitpick on climate models instead of trying to prevent a global catastrophe.

[Sec24Row7]

WHAT catastrophe?

Prevent it HOW?

Jesus read the thread.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Even if we supose that global warming is only a natural process and there's nothing we can do about it, or that it won't be bad for the planet, there is still the Ozone layer depletion over the Poles. That alone can produce a meltdown of the Polar Ice Caps, without a global warming. Some people think this is bull , or conspiracy, tell that to people from Tuvalu, Netherlands, Bangladesh, Maldives, Seyc es, etc.

I'm writing this because I have a feeling that many people say "Oh, global warming isn't our fault, so it's OK to keep polluting the enviroment and killing all animals, we pw3d the bas s, humans rule! yeah!".

[Sec24Row7]

The big animals are going to go away.

There isn't anything we can do about it.

I've spent the majority of my life concerned about the megafauna in Africa, India Asia and the Americas.

I've spent time and money on conservation efforts for them.

We can slow the process, but in the long run, it is a lost cause.

Time is their enemy. As our population increases in their habitats they will slowly be driven into extinction no matter what we do.

The only thing that can save them, is if there is a huge human die off.

Enjoy them. Enjoy the wild they live in. Enjoy your life. Fight against reason for their survival. 200, 300, 1,000 or 2,000 years from now they will all be gone unless something happens to us.

Just typing it makes me sad.