This study adds weight to the theory that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. It says the number of hurricanes in the most powerful categories has increased sharply over the past few decades.
This may not be the last Katrina, so it is important that as we rebuild New Orleans, we prepare it for another. That means improving the levees and restoring the wetlands.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
68 Comments
Oh my! A blog guaranteed to bring forth ecological junk science at its best.
Whether or not the weather is wetter, warmer, and windier, it has never been kind. The “global warming” debate is a sideshow that only lines the pockets of “scientists” doing “studies”. Find me a “scientist” without an agenda, and I’ll listen.
Meanwhile, we need to build barrier islands along the coast, whether the world is warming or not, it has always been treacherous there. Let’s get on with it.And if the ice caps are melting and the sea will rise and inundate coastal areas, let’s build dykes.
No need to keep arguing.
Besides, when California slides into the ocean and the ocean rises, I’ll be happy to sell my new ocean front property in Kansas.
Give me a break. No physicist or meteorologist employed in climate change prediction has “lined his pockets” with anything but lint. These are good, decent, people, using their best understanding of science and mathematics to try to explain the alarming trends being seen in ecosystems around the world.
It’s true that they cannot prove beynd a shadow of a doubt that what we see happening today is attributable to industrial activity. But they can make a damn good case based on a preponderance of evidence.
I don’t think dykes will be of much help to the Maldives Islands or similar island states that are slated to disappear completely with risinf ocean levels.
You folks don’t listen. It is all the hot air coming out of Washinton, D.C. mixing with the cooler air over the Atlantic that causes hurricanes. Same thing happens in Kansas with tornados when all hot air in Topeka mixes with a cold front.
Sheesh, Wired? Give me a break. The hurricane season is now going through a 25 year cycle in which more hurricanes are produced per season than the off 25 year season. No one knows why, but the concensus is that it has nothing to do with global warming. That conclusion is by Meteorologist who have a much better understanding of weather patterns than you or I.More chicken little nonsense from the left.
Gotta love the fact that on the basis of probably third hand information on temporal hurricane cycles (have you yourself ever looked up the journal articles on this or have you only read about it on the internet? Do you have an advanced degree in meterology or physics?)you’re going to dismiss the work of accredited (I mean PhD level) scientists. You cannot dismiss the fact that recent global temperature changes begin with the Industrial Revolution, or that analysis of atmospheric gases trapped in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show this to be one of the fastest rises in perhaps 400,000 years.
While the climate does shift naturally for reasons not yet fully understood, the current rise in temperature cannot be fully explained by these natural processes.
The situation here is just like the Hurricane katrina scenario. We can wait to mobilize until AFTER the disaster or we can take some preventative steps now while the “BIG ONE” hasn’t arrived yet.
Recently I visited my sister in Alaska. She works for the state department that studies the effect of global warming on the tundra and the neighboring villages.They are relocating villages because the perma frost is melting.More sharks are moving into the waters because the temperature is warming.It’s easy to sit in your armchair in the midwest and not want to believe, but it won’t change the truth.People say you can’t blame the president for an act of god. I dont’ blame Bushie, but I do blame man. The kyoto protocol would have been painful, but does that mean it’s not necessary.Ignoring
Global warming has been debated for decades. Not being a climatologist, I have no way of affirming or denying its existence. I do know, however, that even though it has been an issue for over 30 years, there are people that will personally blame George Bush for it and consequently blame him for the existence of hurricanes.There have been letters to the editor saying exactly that…sad that people let their hatred blind them to facts.
I heard it was Bush and Halliburton who installed these huge fans in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean to make these hurricanes. ;)
I believe it’s the Flying Spagetti Monster trying to pay us back for all the overpopulation and pollution we’ve inflicted upon the earth.
Now that, Damoon, makes as much sense as anything I have read in a long time!Ra-men!
What I read and saw concerning the 25 year hurricane cycle was presented as fact by the national weather service and various other WORLD meterological scientists. Not some sky is falling group cryieg about every heat wave that hits any part of the world.They discussed global warming and its possible effect on the hurricane season, and they all agreed that even with with global warming, its effect would not be enough to influence the hurricane season. We ARE in a 25 year cycle, and we will be seeing more hurricanes for some time to come.Brian, this was not third hand info. This was from people who know a lot more than you or I. I try to keep informed on what is what, and this is what: Global warming has nothing to do with the current hurricane season.Wired.com has more to gain by passing on pseudo-science than NOAA does. Get your facts straight. Try rational scientific groups, not ones with agendas.
The Kyoto protocol first came up during the Clinton administration. As it was being negotiated, the US Senate voted unanimously against its provisions, so President Clinton never submitted the protocol for the Senate’s ratification. Neither has President Bush.
China and India, with the largest populations and the fastest growing economies in the world, are exempt from the Kyoto protocol. Why?
Economists say it is most likely that (because of the penalties Kyoto would impose on emissions by some of the largest countries) fossil fuel prices will decline significantly if the protocol is fully ratified, leading to increased use by smaller nations and by China and India. So the net reduction in emissions will be minimal, especially considering India’s and China’s exemptions.
At last week’s “Clinton summit initiative” in New York, Britain’s Tony Blair — formerly a supporter of Kyoto — said “My thinking has changed in the past three or four years….No country “is going to cut its growth.” Of the potential for getting China and India to agree to the Kyoto protocol, he said “They’re not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto.”
Having effectively pulled the plug on the Kyoto protocol, Blair then said “How do we move forward, post-Kyoto? It can only be done by the major players coming together and pooling their [technical] resources…”
Meanwhile, as the technical alternatives to fossil fuels are being considered — agri-fuels, solar power, windmills, and nuclear energy — environmentalists are tripping over themselves to thwart the pace of progress.
For example, notice how limousine liberals, such as Kennedy and Cronkite, are opposing a windmill farm way out in the ocean at Martha’s Vineyard. Pure, selfish NIMBY on their part. The same can be said for opposition to the windmills in the flint hills.
And you will notice that the MSM is giving no attention to Blair’s very blunt and remarkable turnaround on Kyoto. Whenever liberals and conservatives start to agree, the MSM goes silent. And we wonder why the world seems so strident these days.
Creating controversy sells papers, and childishly blaming Bush for everything is the MSM’s most fundamental dogma, facts be damned.
Sudden Sense,Finally a voice of reason concerning the Kyoto protocal. My added comment: The same can be said for oil in Alaska.The interesting thing about “limousine Liberals” is their penchant for “Not in my back yard” but are willing to put it in some God forsaken hole because it will “Create jobs”. Hypocrasy at its ugliest.
Just as the enviromentalist stalled the strengthening of the levees by the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans in 1996, so as to force them to doing a mutli-year enviroment impact study. Well! Too late!
Although it is still Bush’s fault, right?
“Junk science” = right-wing talking point.
“Ecologists stopped the levees” = right-wing talking point.
“MSM (mainstream media) is liberally biased” = right-wing talking point.
Looks like the mighty Karl Rove memo machine is keeping the right-wingers all on the same page. Wouldn’t want anybody to have an independent thought or anything.
The only people who think global warming evidence is “junk science” are the sell-outs working for big oil. The vast concensus is that man-made global warming is occurring and its results led inexorably to catastrophic effects.
The right-wing denials will not prevent reality from occurring.
right-wingers = anyone that disagrees with the DNC talking points
big-oil = left-wing nitwitery
man-made global warming = left-wing environmental hysterical propaganda
Galahad = the bastard son of Sir Lancelot, used as a nom de plume by someone to chicken to use his real name
I see the willing idiots of the DNC have their marching orders!
Hank
Don’t you just love people that dismiss contradictory thought with labels?
Not everyone that disagrees is a right wing fanatic or a product of big oil..we just happen to disagree with you. That does not make you right and us wrong, it is only a difference of opinion.
Labelling or other generalizations does not further the discussion and exchange of ideas, it demonstrates a closed mind and rejection of other thoughts.
We have a right to express ourselves without being accused of “selling out” or something.. besides, big oil has never paid me a dime.
I am not some kind of right wing radical…am not blind to the errors and mis-steps of the government. I do not expect perfection, from Republican or Democratic leaders. Nor will I blame everything in the world on one person or party.
Is it too much to ask for a little courtesy and consideration here?
What is wrong with talking points?
JM,
No one is claiming that the current intense hurricane season is due specifically and exclusively to global warming. What IS being claimed is this…on the basis of rising sea temperatures in the South Atlantic, the best meterological models predict an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes. Whatever the cause of the climate change we are now experiencing, if it continues, we WILL see more hurricanes with more intensity…and that means that even though hurricanes may come and go on a 25 year cycle, they will become MORE intense when averaged over a period longer than 25 years.
Now, with regard to current climate change and its cause. There is certainly the possibility that what we are seeing now is just natural variance in air and seawater temperatures. However, the current change has been one of the most abrupt recorded and it correlates with the start of the Industrial Revolution. Further, “small” manmade releases (relative to CO2 and methane) like chlorofluorocarbons have been demonstrably linked to HUGE global events..like the ozone hole over the poles. Given that scientists are doing their best to include what they know of the effects of greenhouse gases on climate in their models, it seems pretty arrogant to accuse them (where this all began) of “cooking up” the models for fun and profit.
BTW JM,
Who the hell is wired?
Hank–1. whether I post under my own name is wholly irrelevant. I don’t use my real name because I don’t want people like you to call me up and bother me. My e-mail is hot however, so if you have a personal message you can e-mail me.
2. You believe in a young earth (6-10 thousand years old). Because you have chosen to ignore scientific fact to maintain a religious fiction, I cannot begin to argue with you about much of anything, let alone the scientific basis for global warming.
You have rejected the entire epistomology of science. There’s no common ground for argument.
3. Galahad was a bastard. Funny how he was the one who acheived the holy grail. God works in mysterious ways my friend.
Ray–I’m not accusing YOU of selling out if you don’t believe in global warming. I’m accusing scientists who toe that line of selling out.
And the fact is that the few naysaying “scientists” are making big bucks to call global warming “junk science.”
I can provide links if you want, or you can just google it yourself.
omg….I cannot believe I am going to write this, but I find myself in agreement with Galahad. At least on one point, the myth of the earth being 6,000 years old or whatever.
Scientific fact is without doubt, without question, and without dispute. Trusting the Bible (that was written by humans, and therefore prone to error) compared with observable, provable fact is just plain silly.
Not sure what is sillier, that belief, or that I am actually agreeing with Galahad on something…strange world indeed.
Dear Sir Galahad,
Or, maybe Bumblewy would be a better non de plume for you considering your intellect.
The fact that you don’t use your real name isn’t irrelevant. It allows you (in the absence of an intellectual argument) to use name calling and character asassination in your posts.
Little sly innuendos like “people like you” is an example of your arrogance. If you used your own name you would have to tone down your rehtoric a little. More thought would have to be used in your posts instead of just defaming people you don’t agree with.
No my friend, posting on a public BLOG using a phoney name to call people names is not irrelevant, it proves you are a coward.
Hank
Uh, Hank, I wrestled from seventh grade through college.
The word “coward” only works against people who are insecure about their fear. That’s not me, my friend.
But let’s review–I used the phrase “people like you” which I did not mean as a slur. I meant people like you.
You called me the following: “a coward, a chicken, a nitwit, a willing idiot, a bastard, and Bumblwy” (whoever/whatever that is). I have, according to you, a low “intellect” and I’m “arrogant.”
And that was just two of your posts.
But I’M THE ONE who defames others by name calling and character assassination.
When you hear all those little voices in your head, Hank, you might want to get a second opinion.
Dearest Sir Galahad,
Ah yes my friend, but I use my real name. You are a coward because you hide behind a phoney name.
And what, pray tell do you mean by the phrase “people like you”. What kind of person do you think I am? What have I ever wrote that would cause you to hide from me? You have to hide because of your words, not mine.
No my friend, you are the coward. You prove it by hiding behind a phoney name to defame anyone’s character that dares disagree with you and the DNC propaganda you expouse.
And the name is ‘Bumblewy’, a less heroic member of King Arthur’s court. More fitting for a cowardly clown like you!
Hank
PS I too wrestled in school, all in all a pretty safe sport!
I don’t know if this applies to all republicans, but it sure appears as though the ones who comment on this blog have IQs a few points below a small soap dish.
Very few people I know organize their whole existence around the political party they’re affliliated with. Yet the reich wingers here seem to think every thought anyone other than a republican has is part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the country…yawn. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Actually, Brian, I think that is all in all a pretty unfair characterization of the republicans/conservatives that post on this BLOG. The republican party ranks very low in my personal priorties. Top three: God, family, country. Then: job, dogs, and horses. These are based mainly on the time I devote to each. If you want to know anyone’s priorities, see where he spends his time and money.
I am a registered republican only because it allows me to participate in the affairs of the nation in an effective way that is relatively in sync with my belief system.
Other than that, I aggree with you! I don’t think I know anyone personally that organizes their whole existence around a political party, democrat or republican. (That includes Todd Tiahrt) I know a few of the liberals personally that post on this BLOG and I’m not sure if they are even registered voters! I do, however respect them as the good, well intentioned people that they are.
Love ya,
Hank
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Jesus
Let’s try this.
I happend to believe in global warming. The science backs it up.
Now Hank…..or Hank A Price…..or Nathan…….or whoever he is from hour to hour, Hank believes in Rush Limbaugh, who says that “it is absurd to think that the earth which was created by God could be altered by Man. It is the height of arrogance” Of course Mr. Limbaugh, who has no children, and thus no thought of the future beyond his own meglomania, ignores the wholesale changes that man has already inflicted upon the Earth.
But for get all that and consider, for just a moment, thet even the smallest possibility that global warming caused by man is real. Hell put it at 1%! Isn’t even that 1% chance that we are fundamentally altering the climate (as that climate favors our survival and cuvilization of this planet) enough to give anyone pause? If many thousands of bulding inspectors told you there was a 1% chance your house could burn down, would you casually dismiss them?
Oh and personal to Hank. You hand out the criticisms of others intents and identities pretty gratuitously. Now my email is hot and I make no secrets as to my identity. So ya level the “coward” label (as the last defense of a dittohead with no arguement) against me, well…….it aint gonna work cause I am calling you out first. Yup I just called you a coward. And you are far more than a physical coward. You are a mental coward. You cringe as a cowering roach against any light that might expose you to others and even yourself.
Hank–
What weight class? How many years? Freestyle? Greco-roman? How far did you go in the state tournament? What was your favorite pinning combination?
Uh Hank,Maybe you do use your real name on some of your posts, but none of us knows which of those alter-egos it is. There are so many!
Dearest Sir Galahad,
I find it interesting that you go back to your school days for an example of your bravery and then come up with wrestling.
Doesn’t matter what weight class. I wrestled with others of the same weight! Wrestled for two years, quit because my football coach was constantly wanting me to gain weight and my wrestling coach was constantly wanting me to lose. My high school sports have nothing to do with bravery. I was a lousey wrestler. Not chicken, just not very good.
What name did ou wrestle under? Your own, or were there ‘people like me’ then too!
Love ya,
Hank
And now, for global warming,
There may or may not be global warming. I don’t really care. There is enough evidence on both sides to support or deny global warming.
The evidence touted by the global warming nitwits admittedly acknowledges that man is responsible for less that one percent of the increase.
Now then, if there is global warming, it may or may not be harmful.
Warming or not, harmful or not, I don’t beleive that man can do anything much to change it one way or another. Therefore, lets not use it as a political tool to drive us more and more toward socialism.
Hank
Dear Jed,
I have never used anyname other than my own.
Love ya,
Hank
Congratulations JR!
I see you have your webtv system up and running again!
Now, can you use your play station and post at the same time?
Hank
PS What does JR stand for?
Brian,I still have my doubts about global warming. But given the fact that so many believe in it, I suggest you take a serious look at the kyoto protocal. It would have done, and will do, nothing to reverse or stop its effects. That would be true even if the US, Great Britian, et al, signed on. It’s not even a start.Concerning the present hurricane season(s), global warming has nothing to do with either the frequency or magnitude of the storms. This is from, again, the NOAA and other respected sources. These sources would like nothing better to explain away the current crop as being the product of global warming, but can’t do so. These are scientists that have no agenda other than learning the truth, something the liberal mind tends to shy away from in favor of the flavor of the month.Galahad, I didn’t wrestle in school, but my favorite pinning combination off campus was missionary:-))
Hank,
I stand by what I said. All I ever read for ant blog story is this (paraphrased):
You and your liberal, commie, pinko friends at the DNC are trying to subvert America and bring down our president with your opinions about …(fill in blog topic here).
On the other hand, I rarely see the liberal, commie, pinkos doing posting in that way.
Let me give you some examples from this blog story:
“More chicken little nonsense from the left.”
“…even though it has been an issue for over 30 years, there are people that will personally blame George Bush for it and consequently blame him for the existence of hurricanes.”
“notice how limousine liberals, such as Kennedy and Cronkite, are opposing a windmill farm way out in the ocean at Martha’s Vineyard.”
“These are scientists that have no agenda other than learning the truth, something the liberal mind tends to shy away from in favor of the flavor of the month.”
Comments such as these (and they are present in every running commentary) are not becoming to the writer, they are gross generalizations, and they indicate to me that the writer is so bankrupt when it comes to ideas that this is the tripe he has to rely upon.
Another comment. I don’t think many of the contributors to blogs can read. It doesn’t matter what a particular comment says, the response that is given always seems to twist what the writer said. Let me give you an example. The first comment on this story contained:
‘The “global warming” debate is a sideshow that only lines the pockets of “scientists” doing “studies”. Find me a “scientist” without an agenda, and I’ll listen.’
to which I answered that most scientists don’t make tremendous amounts of money from their work and don’t “hype” things to run up their profits (ROFL). From that point on, I was “labeled” and nothing I said was ever read in its proper context. I said that the best meterological models predict more and more intense hurricanes with warmer ocean water..PERIOD. I never said anything about the truth of global warming or my stand on Kyoto. It didn’t matter. Because I said that scientists weren’t scheisters looking to make a fast buck with their “liberal, commie, pinko, DNC inspired” agenda, I was labelled as one myself. All because I wanted to defend the average scientist.
By the way, I have undergraduate degrees in both physics and engineering and a PhD in engineering. I have been working with science and scientists for 20 years. In fact, scientists and engineers appear rto me to be the only lot who will routinely fall on their swords over important issues. Take the shuttle disasters, or the VP of R&D at Philip-Morris, or any of seeral EPA and FDA administrators who resigned when politics replaced science. i myself have lost jobs over my scientific integrity. So PLEASE, don’t try to tell me about how corrupt and self-serving scientists are.
And finally, with repect to global warming and Kyoto…Some of you must think that people in the highest echelons of scientific and economic policy making throughout the world are chuckleheads. No one has said anything here that these guys didn’t already know…global warming may not be real, etc., etc., etc. All of that was factored into their thinking when Kyoto was drafted. It was a good faith effort to try to stem a POTENTIAL disaster of unimaginable magnitude and consequences. They gave it a shot. Yet, ALL I seem to read from opponents ids that it is all a sick perverted attempt on the part of “liberal, commie, pinko….you fill in the rest” to destroy the world economy, institute a new world order, put the Illuminati, Masons, and Jews in charge (or some other such nonsense)…when in fact ALL Kyoto was was an attempt to look at a potential disaster and averty it.
Okay, Hank,
I wanted to see if you were a serious wrestler of just somebody who rolled around on a mat during gym class.
I see now it was the latter.
BTW, JM, funny :)
Dearest Bumblewy, opps I mean Sir Galahad!
I was as serious as any 16 year old kid could be about wrestling, just not very good!
I think it takes more courage to wrestle someone knowing, that even when you practice hard and do your very best, you’re going to get beat!
I’m glad you did so well in wrestling.
Love ya,
Hank
Wrestling has some very painful memories for me. I went to high school in Winfield. We had some very good wrestlers on our team, mostly big ol’ farm boys.
We had a match with El Dorado and they had the state champion in my weight class, no problem, I wasn’t first string anyway. Our first string boy came up with a cold. I was going to get to wrestle!
State Champion as a Junior. My opponent looked like spring steel with a bad attitude. Before the match two assistant coaches were rubbing him down and shaking him out. Other team members were around him giving him encouragement and patting him on the back like he had already won.
My team was avoiding me like the plague. My coach wouldn’t make eye contact with me. I was a comdemned man. Just before time to get on the mat I cornered my coach and asked for some pointers. He looked at me and said, “Stay away from him!”
The next day I started putting on weight for football.
Hank
Dear Brian,
First I must apologize to you. You have had several posts in the past that I did not respond to for any other reason than I was too lazy. I only spend 15 or 20 minutes on this BLOG each day and it would take actual thought to respond to most of your comments. However, this last post of yours can be handled rather easily!You wrote,
“On the other hand, I rarely see the liberal, commie, pinkos doing posting in that way.”
Do you really want to stand behind this comment? Really?
Do you not read JR’s mindless diatribes? Do you not read any of Jed’s inane remarks? Galahad is worse that any of them, he actually has a brain, but chooses not to use it.
On the other hand, Joe williams, Sudden Sense and JM Walker have made some pretty reasonable posts in this particular BLOG without all of name calling you reffered to.
Now if you really would like to discuss something on global warming seriously, we can debate the Maldives Islands. The studies that claim they are going to disappear have pretty much been debunked.
Hank
Hank,
Usually the “liberal, commie pinko DNC stooges” you mention, only respond in kind to what is given.
I have yet to see “republican, fascist, right wing lunatic” or some similar description applied to you or your playmates. But I often see this type of garbage posted in reference to them. My God (or lack thereof), EVERY issue comes down to political persuasion with you and your pals…childish, very childish.
Now with regard to the Maldives, why don’t you do the math? I already have seen it and understand it. If the Greenland ice sheet melts and some of the Antarctic on does too (btw 3 icebergs the size of Rhode Island have calved off the Antarctic ice shelf this year alone), then it is pretty easy to see these islands swamped and up to 50 feet of Manhattan consumed.
The question is not so much “Is this guaranteed to happen?” but “Given the uncertainty we now have, should we ignore this as a valid possibility?”.
That wasn’t worded well. I should read and check before posting…
I have yet to see “republican, fascist, right wing lunatic” or some similar description applied to you or your playmates. But I often see this type of garbage posted in reference to the gentlemen you mention as “liberals” (GASP!!). My God (or lack thereof), EVERY issue comes down to political persuasion with you and your pals…childish, very childish.
Hank,
Thank you for being civil in tone with me. In cas you don’t care to do the calcs., why don’t you check the CIA factbook for the Maldives at:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mv.html
Funny that a government agency in the Bush Administration mentions global warming and sea level rise as serious threats.
Dear Brian,
Earlier on the subject of global warming in general and the Kyoto Accord specifically I linked to a list of over 19,000 mainstream scientists that dissagreed with the need for the Kyoto Accord.
NINETEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS!
Now, even though I am much enamored with your degrees and credentials, you even you must have a problem with assuming that the 19,000 scietists that beleive the Kyoto Accord is nothing but a bunch of hokey have a political agenda.
I am prepared to discuss this in a non-political way. However, the CIA is not non-political.
Hank
Global Warming Will Not Raise Sea LevelPresented at the 1997 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to be unrelated to climate change [1]. We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature–and even more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that–under current conditions– evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from theoretical studies of precipitation increases [2] and from results of General Circulation Models (GCMs) [3,4]. Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice sheets [5].
1. A. Trupin and J. Wahr. Geophys J. Int., 100, 441-453 (1990)2. D. Bromwich. “Ice sheets and sea level” Nature, 373, 18 (1995)3. S.L. Thompson, and D. Pollard. Eos 76, No. 46 Suppl.(1995); J. Clim. (1997)4. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, Int. J. Climatol., 17, 155-162 (1997)5. D.A. Meese et al., Science 266, 1680-1682 (1994)
Hank,
I don’t care how many scientists object to Kyoto..they might be objecting for reasons other than science..like economics or probability.
I simply asked if yo understood the math..it’s pretty easy..accumulation= in-out. If I add lots of water to the oceans because all the ice on greenland melts, sea level will rise.
Dr. Singer’s articles are never cited. If you check the Science Citation Index, he is barely referenced. .. . enough said. The number of citations an article has is a strong indicator of its importance, accuracy, or completeness. Since Dr. Singer is not cited at all, his work is considered “poor”.
Hank,
You might try reading “How to Lie With Statistics”. It’s about a one crap bathroom read..Oh, never mind! You seem to have read it and mastered ther concepts.
Hank, published papers are a dime a dozen. You have to check how often they’re cited to see what impact they’re having..and Dr. Singer is a no impact type of guy.
With regard to the Oregon Petition. The text of the petition is often misrepresented as, for example, “over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis” whereas the petition itself only speaks of catastrophic warming. Further, the covering letter, written in the style of a contribution to PNAS, sent with the petition was strongly criticised as “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,” (Raymond Pierrehumbert). The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement that the petition had nothing to do with them.
Brian, you want us to think you’re a scientist with a PhD., but your writing sounds like just another naive, Green Party idealogue.
If you were an even-handed scientist, you would know that the Kyoto protocol is more about anti-growth and anti-US politics at the UN than about science; and that whatever science may be behind the notion of limiting greenhouse gases, the Kyoto protocol will never work because India and China are entirely exempt from its rules. That is why Kyoto is mere symbolism with a few typical UN swipes at the USA thrown in.
One of the worst swipes in the Kyoto accord was the rule that the main producers of greenhouse gasses (the USA, England, and a few others, but not China or India) would have to reimburse smaller nations (the Maldives, for example) for the cost of dealing with the consequences of global warming (regardless of whether it is all due to greenhouse gas emissions, and regardless of the fact that China and India could continue to increase greenhouse gas production at will, with no such penalty).
So Kyoto is like giving the UN a gun and saying, “Here, shoot me,” with India and China laughing their heads off as they make more ammunition.
But Kyoto doesn’t matter, because it’s history. Oh sure, it became “official” after a sufficient number of non-industrial countries ratified it; but Clinton never submitted it for ratification, nor did Bush, and Blair has renounced it. So, it can now be officially declared dead, though it was DOA from the start.
You write as if the Maldives can be saved only by ending global warming, yet nobody can prove that it is possible to do so. Obviously, if the water is rising at the Maldives, then as Anon said at the top, people need to stop arguing and build some dikes or start dredging sand onto their land to make it higher. I recommend the latter. Things can be done to save low and coastal area; and none of them involve placing blame for global warming, nor proferring impotent UN protocols that accomplish nothing.
You may not like to admit it, Brian, but most climate scientists are up to their eyeballs in partisan politics; and most of them are feeding at the government trough, using government money in a not-disinterested effort to mold political thought toward anti-growth policies. They have failed.
Whatever the so-called science may be, it is severely hampered by a lack of long term climate, weather, solar insolation, earth radiation, and landmass/water characteristics data. The existing data are too limited and useless without solid evidence of accurate, long term climate predictions based on all the contributing variables.
So call me in about 30 – 50 millennia and let me know if they have an accurate model yet. In the meantime, if things are warming up, get to high ground.
Sudden,
I don’t care whether you believe I have an advanced degree or not. Frankly, I don’t care what you think about me personally. You see I subscribe to the Mark Twain school of personal relationships: 25% of the people will like you for the right reasons, 25% will like you for the wrong reasons, 25% will dislike you for the wrong reasons, and 25% will dislike you for the right reasons. You only have to worry about the last group. I don’t place you in that group.
By the way, what do you know about what a research scientist would sound like since you’re not one yourself (obviously). You presume to understand the issues “deeply” when all you seem capable of doing is taking cheap shots. Put up or shut up. I provided the evidence proving Hank’s contentions wrong. You do the same.
With regard to Kyoto, I can barely contain my laughter. First, I NEVER said I supported Kyoto. You prove my point about reich wing chuckleheads made in an earlier post.
There is nothing magical in Kyoto- for example, the buying and selling of “pollution vouchers”. The mechanism is EXACTLY the same as that behind money as a means of barter. If the United States cannot meet it emission target, then it is free to go out to the marketplace and buy some pollution vouchers that allow the US to pollute more. If many countries are well below their quotas then vouchers will be plentiful and cheap. If on the other hand many countries are not meeting their emission targets, then vouchers will be few and expensive. It’s simply the law of supply and demand..And since the pollution reduction targets are SET, overall pollution will either be reduced OR the violators might end up paying a substantial penalty in the cost of extra pollution vouchers. The system rewards investment in technologies to reduce greenhouse gas releases by including a cost for pollution in the overall cost for the production of a product. Makes perfect sense.
So until you establish that 1) you have the education to comment on any scientific, political, or economic aspect of this or any subject, and 2) you can write a comment without defaming another, you aren’t worth any more of my time.
Oh yeah, I forgot. So, you’re going to build a 50+ foot high wall around the Maldives to prevent their being swamped by rising sea levels? Yeah, I can see that you’re grounded in reality there Sudden. I’ll bet you take massive amounts of aspirin for the headaches you get from banging your head against the wall when stopping the banging would be a more intelligent solution.
Oooh, one more little thing. Those very same climactic models you criticize are used routinely (in modified form) to chart the estimated trajectories of hurricanes..you know like Katrina…where the model said 3 days out that Katrina would strike near New Orleans and be a humdinger. With you take on things Sudden, I think you might want to consider a job at FEMA.
Brian,First, take a close look at Liberals. They are all over the place when it comes to what they stand for, hence my “flavor of the month” comment. Part of blogging. You don’t like it, too bad.Of course there are self serving scientists. There are self serving humans in every walk of life. But self serving doesn’t mean selling out all the time. Selling out for the few dollars available for research is pretty common, I imagine, but you can’t tell me that there are NOT any serious scientists out there searching for the truth. And just because a scientist has a doctrate attached to his/her name does not mean they know what they are talking about when it comes to global warming.Does the NOAA have an agenda? I sure hope so: informing this country, and the world, of weather that could cause disasters, or allow planning for a trip or vacation. Pretty laudable, in my opinion.If global warming is causing, or intensifying, the current crop of hurricanes, I would think the NOAA would be reporting their studies showing why and how. Instead, they are in agreement that global warming is not the culprit, and have so stated on a number of occasions.”Oooh, one more little thing. Those very same climactic models you criticize are used routinely (in modified form) to chart the estimated trajectories of hurricanes” Who modified them? What math formulas did they use?Another thing. You stated that some of the comments written by people such as myself, showed our ignorence, or something to that effect. Here are some of yours:”I’ll bet you take massive amounts of aspirin for the headaches you get from banging your head against the wall when stopping the banging would be a more intelligent solution.”"With you take on things Sudden, I think you might want to consider a job at FEMA.”Do you get my point?Blogs are written by everyday people from all walks of life and that’s what makes them so interesting, like them or not. Snlde, off-handed remarks, can liven up debates. Lighten up, Brian. Have some fun…Know any good jokes?
JM,
Don’t be idiotic. You just said in so many wordsw that the models uded for hurricane prediction contain an element of prophecy in them. If a model predicts a hurricane’s trajectory and intensity 3 days before it’s predictions arer fulfilled in reality, then either the models used are pretty good, it was a shot in the dark, they made up the results and published them and didn’t gety caught, or the Holy Spirit told them the answer. Stop it, man, you almost have me crying with laughter.
Here let me direct you to
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
where you can see the comparisons of 4 or 5 different independent models produced by as many research groups.
Yes, I agree that PhD after someone’s name doesn’t mean much. What DOES matter is the scientific impact that individual makes as measured by how often his work is cited, which journals publish him (since journals are also rated for the impact of their content), etc. So, as I said, when you or Hank or anyone else pull out some guy’s name, I’m going to check it in the Science Citation Index and simply report the results. So, as I said, Hank’s reference to Dr. Fischer is a joke since his citation rate hovers above zero.
Yes, politics may affect all areas of human endeavor. But let me see..the engineers at Thiokol pleaded with NASA NOT to launch because of the O-ring/temperature issue in spite of the enormous pressure NASA was putting on them to give the launch the OK. The head of corporate R&D for Philip-Morris (I think) resigned over the deceptions the company was committing over cigarette safety. He subsequently lost his home, his family, has been the subject of death threats, etc. Several FDA scientists have resigned ovwer the increasing politicization of the drug review process. It has been my experience that most scientists place their oath to science and fact above everything else.
Yes, and I will repond in kind when insults are thrown at me. I have never and will never label a person with mindless characterizations unless I am the victim first. As you said, this is a blog, get used to it. Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Here’s your joke: What’s the best thing about an Ethiopian BJ? You KNOW she’ll swallow.
This is from the NOAA website, ver batim:
Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun’s energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases.
Hmm, solar irradiance variation can account for 0.09 W/m^3 change here on earth while greenouse fasrs seem to account fot 0.4 W/m^2. Unless my math is wrong this is a factor of greater than 4:1. Go figure..greenhouse gases SEEM to have 4 times the potency of measured solar output changes.
Hmm, solar irradiance variation can account for 0.09 W/m^3 change here on earth while greenouse fasrs seem to account fot 0.4 W/m^2. Unless my math is wrong this is a factor of greater than 4:1.Refigure your math. The sun’s variation is -0.09. W/m2. The other thing is are they basing this on actual atmospheric measurements of greenhouse gases, or on a model of well-mixed gases? Your included paragraph leaves many unanswered questions, and taht’s what scientists do: ask question. You yourself should know that.
JM,
You don’t get it, huh? Irrespective of the “sign” of tyhe variance, the ratio of the magnitudes is over 4:1. That’s like saying you made $40 in the stack market and lost $10 on bonds. Te one is significantly larger than the other. And I’m not the one who said the NOAA discounted greenhouse gases for the most part as a source of climate change. I am merely pointing out that the very agency you cite gives it’s best estimate for the greenhouse effect warming due to CO2 and other IR emitters as 0.4 W/m2 to 0.09 W/m2 for the sun’s measured variance in power output.
Yes, the paragraph leaves many questions unanswered. But it leaves no doubt that greenhouse gases play a prominent role in the answer.
This discusiion has been all about possibilities and probabilities. The Titanic might have stayed afloat after she struck the iceberg. No one could know for sure until she actually sank. Now, in such a situation, you could have chosen to remain aboard or you could have chosen to leave (lifeboat issue aside). Even if she had remained afloat, it would have been prudent to leave.
Similarly, we don’t know the effect of all variables on climate. But your own agency says it appears to be significant. Wouldn’t it make sense to attempt to make easy decisions now to help alleviate the problem rather than waiting until it’s too late? There are lots of technologies for reducing CO2 output..easy ones include things like higher fuel efficiency standards, solar and wind power, perhaps even atomic fission. Research should be accelerated on fusion since this would be the ultimate source of infinite, clean energy.
So, JM, you say tom-ah-to and I say to-may-to. Let’s work the whole thing out..And working out doesn’t mean sitting with our thumbs up our arses waiting to see if we hit the trifecta.
Sorry to have to tell you this, Brian, but the Mars ice caps are melting, too.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
SInce we are not producing greenhouse gases there, what would be the cause, other than the sun?
BTW, your joke “sucks.” It’s really in poor taste, too. You must be Ian in disguise.
dooda,
and why, if there’s a component to solar output contributing to the poles melting here wouldn’t the same be true on Mars? By the way, correlation doesn’t imply causation. There’s a correlation between the numer of storks born in Germany and Budweiser consumption in the US. While the one may be causative of the other, it sure seems improbable. So, if you’re claiming the Mars ice caps are shrinking simultaneously with earths, AND that the sun’s output causes a part of the shrinking on earth, then it follows that the same would be true on Mars, to a first approximation.
Sorry you didn’t like the riddle. I’d suggest you don’t go to see “The Aristocrats”.
Oh well, as the late Douglas Adams said: “You live and learn. At any rate, you live.”
dooda, here’s one back atcha…
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
which states, ver batim
Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. “It’s late spring at the south pole of Mars,” says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it.”
hey dooda, another poster who changes identities huh? Your email smarter@than.media.pukes.com has appeared before for a poster with another alias. It’s not like this sort of thing works since most people remember the email address as well as the alias.
Is there Global warming? Scientists disagree. Maybe, maybe not. If there is Global warming, do greenhouse gases contribute? Scientists disagree. Maybe, maybe not. What part of the greenhouse gases are generated by man? Less than 3%.
Now we come to the Kyoto Accord. There is nothing scientific about it. Purely political. It’s a blame and punish America UN document. It assumes that Global warming will occur this century by about 2.5 degrees without its sanctions in place. If we sign and follow its punitive sanctions, maybe the globe will only warm by about 2 degrees!
So we come to your question,
The question is not so much “Is this guaranteed to happen?” but “Given the uncertainty we now have, should we ignore this as a valid possibility?”.
The answer is: Since this whole global warming farce is based on a false premise,
Can we afford to allow the environmental nitwits determine our economic and political policies?
NINETEEN THOUSAND MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS say NO!
Love ya,
Hank
Brian,Excellent joke. Ate at an Ethiopian restrauant in San Diego one time. Awesome food. Too bad they can’t eat as well.I can’t say for sure that your math is correct with regards to NoAA’s asessment of “~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases” since I am not sure what it refers to. With a number such as -0.09, there could be any number of possibilities. A negative number, to me, opens up some interesting formulas, one of them being your interpretation of a 4:1 ratio.Having a degree in in both engineering and physics (congradulations on your accomplishments), you know that the spin theory, with regards to negatives, has enormous consequences on atom theory and formulas, few having anything to do with simple ratios. I do not have a degree in anything, unfortunately, but I do consider myself well read and self educated in many areas. Weather is not one of them, but I do know that the earth goes through many cycles, some brought on by cyclical changes in solar radiation. So I question your conclusion on the “4:1″ ratio you suggest. I get it, but I question it: What does -0.09 w/^2 mean exactly, and why is it expressed as a negitive interger? Is the “well mixed green house gasses” number derived from actual atmosperic samples, or test models?Finally, I don’t believe tha I contradict myself by questioning hurricane forecast models, as they are just that; models based on the latest scientific knowledge, and NOAA itself says that these models are not 100% accurate. The three day model was a best guess estimate based on the lastest data. It changed hourly, as atmospheric conditions changed. It was expected to hit as a cat 5. It hit as a cat 4. Ten hours prior to hitting the coast, the model finally showed it turning from New Orleans.Scientists still don’t know how hurricanes form, or why they form. They have theories, but no concrete laws.My point is the models do not, and cannot, show exact paths, because too little is known about exact weather patterns. They stay best guesses. I think that absolves me from contradicting myself.I have legitimate concerns on global warming. I don’t think the evidence is strong enough to support it. I have heard too much junk science in my days to believe everything that comes out in every newspaper on the stand. Until I read irrefutable proof that global warming is caused by man, and not sun/earth cycles, I refuse to believe in it’s existence.I am not some nut case who believes the earth is 6 thousand years old, or the stars revolve around the earth. I concur with the big bang theory, loved it when man walked on the moon, watched in awe as the mars rovers sent back unbelievable pictures of the red planet. I just don’t believe in global warming.O, ya…wired is a web site.
JM,
It’s nice when we all talk reasonably without the tossing of epithets. Compared to many, I don’t consider lack of a degree an impediment. I’m an equal opportunity person. Some of the best scientists I’ve known have been the technicians I’ve worked with who had no degrees or at most associates. They learned in the school of hard knocks and experience and I took whatever they said pretty seriously. So, keep up with the reading, questioning and learning. WShen we stop we die.
I also have questions about global warming…Kyoto too. But what I won’t tolerate is prejudiced presentations of the story on both topics (ditto common descent and creationism). Most people don’t seem to realize that pulling information off web sites or blogs ranks a little above absolutely worthless in most cases. You have to go out, do a literature search, read the important papers (determined by their citation rate, etc.), glance at the lesser cited refs. and then try to draw all the information together.
It is beyond doubt that global surface temperatures have been rising for at least 150 years.
It is also beyond doubt that CO2 and methane (among others) are excellent converters of visible light energy into the infrared. Every grammar school kid knows the earth is as warm as it is because of the “greenhouse effect”.
It is also beyond dispute that the concentration of CO2 in a lab experiment affects the temperature rise observed in a greenhouse effect experiment…the more CO2, the greater the efficiency of conversion of energy into long wavelength IR trapped by the atmosphere.
To your points. It is well established that the earth does posses many temporally varying quantities. These variations may simply be due to the nature and structure of the underlying steady state, or it might be that the system is being “forced” by outside factors, like the temporally varying energy output of the sun, as you rightly point out.
Now, some physicists, meteorologists, and mathematicians get together and they take their best shot at writing some differential balance equations. They balance mass, momentum, energy, species (CO2, methane, etc.). They do their best to put in the science that is known about the magnitudes of the individual terms in these equations. They then solve the set and what do they find? They find that increasing IR emitters increases global surface temperatures. At this point, they haven’t included the sunspot cycle, nor have they gotten the ocean circulation patterns down, but they do their best. That’s all we can ask.
Now, based on the results and the little data available, one is forced to try to come to some conclusion. It certainly seems clear to me that IR emitters represent a potential threat and we would be wise to minimize the threat if it is at all possible without causing unbearable hardship. Making car fleets get an average of 30 mpg compared to 27 mpg hardly seems like an unbearable inconvenience, for example.
If you have ever worked in any type of field involving risk analysis, you always make the more damaging event as unlikely as is economically feasible. I hate to put a value on human life. But car accidents rarely involve more than perhaps 5 people. Airline accidents, on the other hand, can involve hundreds to maybe a thousand if the plane comes down in an urban area. therefore, planes are made to be much more reliable than cars are because the consequences of an accident are so much worse.
So, now you have global warming, the possibility it is caused to some degree by human activity, and the dire consequences of ice sheets melting, ocean conveyors shutting down, droughts, floods, etc. Given the magnitude of the POTENTIAL outcomes, doesn’t it make sense to put a little effort into ameliorating factors which contribute that are in our control?
Thanks for the discussion. No hard feelings I hope :-)
Bria,Absolutly no hard feelings. The difficulty of an intelligent conversation in a blog environment can be mind-bogeling. You are certainly an exception to the rule.One of my basic problems with global warming, as current theory would have us believe, is just as you presented it: Not enough is really known to make a definete answer either way.Yes, the use of alternate energy sources should be explored more, yes, cars should be made that get 60~70 miles per gallon, and yes, nuclear energy should be exploited to a greater degree. If there is a greenhouse problem, these changes would help to balance the equation. The key word being: If.I have read extensively on the current science available on greenhouse gasses and I am just not convinced. I am a great skeptic when it comes to science, and I think that is a learned and necessary thing. Things like smoking causing cancer? You bet it does. The science is as plain. The earth is four billion years old? Again, the scientific proof is plain. Global warming? We’ll see, amigo.
Dear Brian,
A very reasonable well thought out post.
In your concluding paragraph your question:
“Given the magnitude of the POTENTIAL outcomes, doesn’t it make sense to put a little effort into ameliorating factors which contribute that are in our control?”
Any reasonable person would have to answer yes! However, we are already putting more than a ‘little effort’ into the factors that are with in our control. In my opinion and in the opinion of many many scientists we are already putting to many restrictions on our economy based on the premise that we can have any effect at all on the outcome of global warming.
Hank
Hank,
What fun would it be if there weren’t something to discuss? :-)