http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...ceans.html
Quote:Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls
January 22, 2008
A warming global ocean — influencing the winds that shear off the tops of developing storms — could mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States according to new findings by NOAA climate scientists. Furthermore, the relative warming role of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans is important for determining Atlantic hurricane activity.
The article, to be published on January 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.
“We looked at U.S. landfalling hurricanes because it is the most reliable Atlantic hurricane measurement over the long term,” says Chunzai Wang, a physical oceanographer and climate scientist with NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami and lead author on the article. “Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” For the article, Wang worked with Sang-Ki Lee of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies-University of Miami.
In terms of hurricane strength, Wang notes, “The vertical wind shear is not the only factor affecting Atlantic hurricane activity, although it is an important one.” Other factors include atmospheric humidity, sea level pressure, and sea surface temperature.
This study also suggests that where the global ocean warming occurs is important for determining the vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region — within the 10°-20° North latitude belt that stretches from west Africa to Central America. Whether future global warming increases Atlantic hurricane activity will probably depend on the relative role induced by sustained long-term warming over the tropical oceans.
Observations from 1854 to 2006 show a warming of sea surface temperature occurring almost everywhere over the global ocean, with large warming in tropical regions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. Warmer waters in the tropical Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic oceans produce opposite effects upon vertical wind shear; that is, warming in the tropical Pacific and Indian oceans increase vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region, while warming in the tropical North Atlantic decreases vertical wind shear. Overall, warming in the Pacific and Indian oceans is of greater impact and produces increased levels of vertical wind shear which suppresses Atlantic hurricane activity.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 70 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects.
So, now we learn that warmer ocean temps REDUCE hurricane activity. This just goes to show that while everyone on the doomsday side of the global argument says they know for a fact what is happening, and why, they are in fact all full of sh*t because we don't know as much as we think we do. It is reports like this that make people like me skeptical of the global warming issue. I mean, global warming causing more hurricanes is a central point of the debate, and it has been wrong according to NOAA.
BatesUAB Wrote:http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008...ceans.html
Quote:Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls
January 22, 2008
A warming global ocean — influencing the winds that shear off the tops of developing storms — could mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States according to new findings by NOAA climate scientists. Furthermore, the relative warming role of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans is important for determining Atlantic hurricane activity.
The article, to be published on January 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.
“We looked at U.S. landfalling hurricanes because it is the most reliable Atlantic hurricane measurement over the long term,” says Chunzai Wang, a physical oceanographer and climate scientist with NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami and lead author on the article. “Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” For the article, Wang worked with Sang-Ki Lee of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies-University of Miami.
In terms of hurricane strength, Wang notes, “The vertical wind shear is not the only factor affecting Atlantic hurricane activity, although it is an important one.” Other factors include atmospheric humidity, sea level pressure, and sea surface temperature.
This study also suggests that where the global ocean warming occurs is important for determining the vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region — within the 10°-20° North latitude belt that stretches from west Africa to Central America. Whether future global warming increases Atlantic hurricane activity will probably depend on the relative role induced by sustained long-term warming over the tropical oceans.
Observations from 1854 to 2006 show a warming of sea surface temperature occurring almost everywhere over the global ocean, with large warming in tropical regions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. Warmer waters in the tropical Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic oceans produce opposite effects upon vertical wind shear; that is, warming in the tropical Pacific and Indian oceans increase vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region, while warming in the tropical North Atlantic decreases vertical wind shear. Overall, warming in the Pacific and Indian oceans is of greater impact and produces increased levels of vertical wind shear which suppresses Atlantic hurricane activity.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 70 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects.
So, now we learn that warmer ocean temps REDUCE hurricane activity. This just goes to show that while everyone on the doomsday side of the global argument says they know for a fact what is happening, and why, they are in fact all full of sh*t because we don't know as much as we think we do. It is reports like this that make people like me skeptical of the global warming issue. I mean, global warming causing more hurricanes is a central point of the debate, and it has been wrong according to NOAA.
dude,
don't you know global warming is the cause for everything?
from drought to floods, shrinking glaciers to growing glaciers, more hurricanes to less hurricane activity, explosions in population growth to lower birth rates.
just ask the libs.
and evil mankind is the cause of global warming.
we aren't part of nature, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
When I was growing up in Alabama in the 40s and 50s, CONSERVATIVE meant one who supported the political status quo of segregation, even to the tacit allowance of KKK spawned violence of lynchings, castrations and "drive by" shootings and bombings. A LIBERAL was a "N___-loving commie" who supported an end to those aforementioned "Old South" traditions and heritage with the extension of equal civil rights (like voting) to all citizens of Alabama. After the "Voting Rights Act (1965) ended that part of the fight, there was a large infusion of black Alabamians into the Democratic Party during the heyday of George Wallace's national political campaign. He ran as an Independent in 49 states, but remained a Democrat in Alabama.
As the 70s gave way to the 80s, and the power of the Wallace machine faded, Wallace democrats began a wholesale shift from the Old South Party to the "Whiter" Republican Party. Actually, the southern Democrats in Congress had been supporting Republican policies since the Nixon Administration when they were called the "Boll Weevil" Democrats. Only a few of the old Democrats who are on the national scene, remain loyal to the national party.
On the state level the Democrats continue to hold power because of the "old timers" and the local style politics. State wide the Republicans reign supreme unless they are from Jeffco. The last Jeffco politician to win a statewide race was "Bull" Conner and we remember what he did to get statewide credibility.
Now I see LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE is being applied to "Global Warming" issues. There apparently is LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE science today. From what I have read, global warming IS NOT DEBATED as a fact. The argument is over the amount of human activity-related causes of that warming that exists. If human causes are not significant, there is little we can do to affect the eventual outcome so we are "just along for the ride". Like the commercial that shows a large group of people trying to stop the coming of Mondays, we can only alter what we can control.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:When I was growing up in Alabama in the 40s and 50s, CONSERVATIVE meant one who supported the political status quo of segregation, even to the tacit allowance of KKK spawned violence of lynchings, castrations and "drive by" shootings and bombings. A LIBERAL was a "N___-loving commie" who supported an end to those aforementioned "Old South" traditions and heritage with the extension of equal civil rights (like voting) to all citizens of Alabama. After the "Voting Rights Act (1965) ended that part of the fight, there was a large infusion of black Alabamians into the Democratic Party during the heyday of George Wallace's national political campaign. He ran as an Independent in 49 states, but remained a Democrat in Alabama. As the 70s gave way to the 80s, and the power of the Wallace machine faded, Wallace democrats began a wholesale shift from the Old South Party to the "Whiter" Republican Party. Actually, the southern Democrats in Congress had been supporting Republican policies since the Nixon Administration when they were called the "Boll Weevil" Democrats. Only a few of the old Democrats who are on the national scene, remain loyal to the national party. On the state level the Democrats continue to hold power because of the "old timers" and the local style politics. State wide the Republicans reign supreme unless they are from Jeffco. The last Jeffco politician to win a statewide race was "Bull" Conner and we remember what he did to get statewide credibility.
Now I see LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE is being applied to "Global Warming" issues. There apparently is LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE science today. From what I have read, global warming IS NOT DEBATED as a fact. The argument is over the amount of human activity-related causes of that warming that exists. If human causes are not significant, there is little we can do to affect the eventual outcome so we are "just along for the ride". Like the commercial that shows a large group of people trying to stop the coming of Mondays, we can only alter what we can control.
climate experts and geologists can also point to the facts of AT LEAST two ice ages. Meaning there had to be some sort of warming BEFORE a second ice age could occur. therefore there is STILL debate as to whether this is fact or another natural cycle.
the earth has been for millions of years. we've been measuring water (sst)/air temps. barely more than a hundred or so of these. early measurements were taken with crude instruments (+/- degrees of accuracy) by todays standards (.01 degree or better).
in light of the age of the earth v. the time frame we've been measuring temps., how can ANYONE be considered an expert, our data being such a small dot on the line of the earths life.
science is ALWAYS backed-up by a set of FACTS, not consensus.
if not, it is a theory.
therefore, global warming CAN NOT be science because there is only a consensus of scientists agreeing on the matter. an equal number of which disagree
vanity, my friends.
mankind thinking we're gods
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:When I was growing up in Alabama in the 40s and 50s, CONSERVATIVE meant one who supported the political status quo of segregation, even to the tacit allowance of KKK spawned violence of lynchings, castrations and "drive by" shootings and bombings. A LIBERAL was a "N___-loving commie" who supported an end to those aforementioned "Old South" traditions and heritage with the extension of equal civil rights (like voting) to all citizens of Alabama. After the "Voting Rights Act (1965) ended that part of the fight, there was a large infusion of black Alabamians into the Democratic Party during the heyday of George Wallace's national political campaign. He ran as an Independent in 49 states, but remained a Democrat in Alabama. As the 70s gave way to the 80s, and the power of the Wallace machine faded, Wallace democrats began a wholesale shift from the Old South Party to the "Whiter" Republican Party. Actually, the southern Democrats in Congress had been supporting Republican policies since the Nixon Administration when they were called the "Boll Weevil" Democrats. Only a few of the old Democrats who are on the national scene, remain loyal to the national party. On the state level the Democrats continue to hold power because of the "old timers" and the local style politics. State wide the Republicans reign supreme unless they are from Jeffco. The last Jeffco politician to win a statewide race was "Bull" Conner and we remember what he did to get statewide credibility.
Now I see LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE is being applied to "Global Warming" issues. There apparently is LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE science today. From what I have read, global warming IS NOT DEBATED as a fact. The argument is over the amount of human activity-related causes of that warming that exists. If human causes are not significant, there is little we can do to affect the eventual outcome so we are "just along for the ride". Like the commercial that shows a large group of people trying to stop the coming of Mondays, we can only alter what we can control.
Is there any way that you can try to break your posts up into paragraphs and not go on these long rambling diatribes which have zero to do with the subject? Thanks.
Sincerely,
The rest of Humanity
dfarr Wrote:Is there any way that you can try to break your posts up into paragraphs and not go on these long rambling diatribes which have zero to do with the subject? Thanks.
Sincerely,
The rest of Humanity
Now I see LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE is being applied to "Global Warming" issues. There apparently is LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE science today. From what I have read, global warming IS NOT DEBATED as a fact. The argument is over the amount of human activity-related causes of that warming that exists. If human causes are not significant, there is little we can do to affect the eventual outcome so we are "just along for the ride". Like the commercial that shows a large group of people trying to stop the coming of Mondays, we can only alter what we can control.
[/quote]
Is there any way that you can try to break your posts up into paragraphs and not go on these long rambling diatribes which have zero to do with the subject? Thanks.
Sincerely,
The rest of Humanity
[/quote]
Glad to oblige on paragraphs, but the subject matter of applying liberal or conservative tags to every issue that "comes down the pike" is very much to the point.
There is no known correlation between ocean temperature and NUMBER of hurricanes that we know about. I don't know any scientists who study AGW for a living who has ever said there was such a relationship. There is a DIRECT correlation between the STRENGTH of a hurricane and AGW. The warmer the water, the more powerful the storm. There is exactly zero scientific doubt that the greenhouse gas pollution humanity has pored into the atmosphere has lead to the the warmer temperatures in the Arctic and worldwide. There is still some debate about how soon and how bad the more serious consequences of this are going to hit.
If you want to learn more about where the SCIENTIFIC understanding of AGW and related issues, bookmark
http://www.realclimate.org/ and read it often. It's a blog for AGW scientists who study AGW (and by study I mean do actual science on the subject, not pull lies out of their @sses for 10k a pop like the global warming deniers do.)
BlazerMatt Wrote:There is no known correlation between ocean temperature and NUMBER of hurricanes that we know about. I don't know any scientists who study AGW for a living who has ever said there was such a relationship. There is a DIRECT correlation between the STRENGTH of a hurricane and AGW. The warmer the water, the more powerful the storm. There is exactly zero scientific doubt that the greenhouse gas pollution humanity has pored into the atmosphere has lead to the the warmer temperatures in the Arctic and worldwide. There is still some debate about how soon and how bad the more serious consequences of this are going to hit.
If you want to learn more about where the SCIENTIFIC understanding of AGW and related issues, bookmark http://www.realclimate.org/ and read it often. It's a blog for AGW scientists who study AGW (and by study I mean do actual science on the subject, not pull lies out of their @sses for 10k a pop like the global warming deniers do.)
you unwittingly swerved into my point.
while it may be fact temps. are rising [short term], there is NO science which can directly point to evil mankind as being the cause. the FACT there have been AT LEAST 2 ice ages begats the FACT that temps have risen BEFORE [and cooled before, also]. The earth was pristene (meaning no mankind), during THESE times. The accuracy of the temp measurements [prior to satellite usage] ARE in question. If I'm not mistaken, there was no pollution, no internal combustion engine and no 'capitalist pig' manufacturers during these previous warming periods. By having a concensus of [a sect of] scientists agreeing on ANY subject does not make it scientific fact. Theory yes, science NO. It can't be science unless it can be backed by as set of facts.
No one 'pulling lies', except the global warming alarmists crowd.
edit
question
how many 'scientists' contribute to this blog v. total number of scientists worldwide?
The environmental movement, the new home of socialism.
BlazerMatt Wrote:There is exactly zero scientific doubt that the greenhouse gas pollution humanity has pored into the atmosphere has lead to the the warmer temperatures in the Arctic and worldwide.
Wrong. There is lots of scientific doubt about this kind of stuff, but it doesn't suit your liberal agenda.
And spare me all the bull**** about "global warming deniers making up science for money." The exact same can be said about scientists who are working for the environmentalists. Scientists want to produce results that gets them funding, and right now all the funding is coming from people trying to prove man made global warming.
You really don't understand the science here. It is a scientific fact that man made greenhouse gases are the driving force behind the current warming trend. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now (its a whole mix of gases, but for simplicity sake I'm just going to use the term CO2 as an example for all of them instead of typing it all out every time.) We know there is a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. We know that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. We know where the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from exactly. (meaning, CO2 produced from burning gasoline has a different isotope mix from CO2 produced from burning coal, which has a different isotope mix from decaying plant matter, which has a different isotope mix that CO2 produced from burning wood, etc. So we can tell exactly what percentage of CO2 is coming from what sources.)
This is not THAT difficult to understand if you are willing to be intellectually honest about it.
It comes as no surprise, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Global warming is only a political issue because the oil and coal companies have tried to make it one, duping the ignorant into believing their tabacco-esque junk science. This is the difference in science and the bullcrap you so mindlessly believe in:
Quote:Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap.
A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:
* Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:
"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."
So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)
* At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
* At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
* Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.
BlazerMatt Wrote:This is not THAT difficult to understand if you are willing to be intellectually honest about it.
that's what we're asking for here, a little intellectual honesty.
I've passed all chemistry [P-chem and below](@ UAB, none-the- less). I have a pretty good grasp of what you post.
since NONE of your 'evidence' existed between ice ages (4 to be factually correct), what accounted for the 'global warming' between these ice ages?
Could it be climate change is cyclical?
We can't control daily temp highs and lows, wind, rain, hurricanes (except for Bush who steered Katrina into NOLA), tornadoes, any weather activity at all with much, if any, success.
Meterologist can't even give 'accurate' weather forecasts of more than 72 hrs. Groundhogs to predict the seasons?
How can you THINK the doomsday predictions are different?
Dont' get me wrong here. Believe what you want.
Just don't try to blow smoke up my b*tt about this being good science.
I might take this seriously WHEN someone gets weather predictions consistently accurate AT LEAST 10 days in advance.
Until then,
imo, It's not science, only theory...and a bad one at that.
theory
like the earth being the center of the universe, proven incorrect btw,...supported by FACTS, really
evolution
the existence of a Higher Being, one I espouse to
even gravity began as a theory, until it could be supported by FACTS.
oldblazer79 Wrote:BlazerMatt Wrote:This is not THAT difficult to understand if you are willing to be intellectually honest about it.
that's what we're asking for here, a little intellectual honesty.
I've passed all chemistry [P-chem and below](@ UAB, none-the- less). I have a pretty good grasp of what you post.
since NONE of your 'evidence' existed between ice ages, what accounted for the 'global warming' between ice ages?
Could it be climate change is cyclical?
We can't control daily temp highs and lows, wind, rain, hurricanes (except for Bush who steered Katrina into NOLA), tornadoes, any weather activity at all with much, if any, success.
Meterologist can't even give 'accurate' weather forecasts of more than 72 hrs. Groundhogs to predict the seasons?
How can you THINK the doomsday predictions are different?
Dont' get me wrong here. Believe what you want.
Just don't try to blow smoke up my b*tt about this being good science.
I'll take this seriously WHEN someone gets weather predictions consistently accurate AT LEAST 10 days in advance.
Until then,
imo, It's not science, only theory.
like the earth being the center of the universe, proven incorrect btw,...supported by FACTS, really
evolution
the existence of a Higher Being, one I espouse to
even gravity began as a theory, until it could be supported by FACTS.
No offense, but did you pass English composition? It's really hard to follow your posts. Could you clarify the part about evolution?
mixduptransistor Wrote:oldblazer79 Wrote:BlazerMatt Wrote:This is not THAT difficult to understand if you are willing to be intellectually honest about it.
that's what we're asking for here, a little intellectual honesty.
I've passed all chemistry [P-chem and below](@ UAB, none-the- less). I have a pretty good grasp of what you post.
since NONE of your 'evidence' existed between ice ages, what accounted for the 'global warming' between ice ages?
Could it be climate change is cyclical?
We can't control daily temp highs and lows, wind, rain, hurricanes (except for Bush who steered Katrina into NOLA), tornadoes, any weather activity at all with much, if any, success.
Meterologist can't even give 'accurate' weather forecasts of more than 72 hrs. Groundhogs to predict the seasons?
How can you THINK the doomsday predictions are different?
Dont' get me wrong here. Believe what you want.
Just don't try to blow smoke up my b*tt about this being good science.
I'll take this seriously WHEN someone gets weather predictions consistently accurate AT LEAST 10 days in advance.
Until then,
imo, It's not science, only theory.
like the earth being the center of the universe, proven incorrect btw,...supported by FACTS, really
evolution
the existence of a Higher Being, one I espouse to
even gravity began as a theory, until it could be supported by FACTS.
No offense, but did you pass English composition? It's really hard to follow your posts. Could you clarify the part about evolution?
da#m, 'seven years of college down the drain'
certainly, I'll attempt to explain.
did you read the line...ONLY THEORY?
the word 'evolution' is listed in the section directly below ...ONLY THEORY, same as the other 3, but you didn't seem to have a problem understanding those
And yes, I know SOME beings HAVE evolved. But there is no conclusive evidence (facts) man evolved from any other 'earth based' being.
Hope this clarifies the point.
helpful hint:
if you intend to engage in a battle of wits, please don't arrive unarmed.
No offense.
BlazerMatt, I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say that global warming will increase the freqeuncy and severity of hurricanes. And I am talking about scientists discussing it on Discovery Channel, stuff like that. Not just the people who haven't got a clue. In 2005, when we had a record number of storms, thats all we heard about. "Global warming is here, and this is a manifestation of it."
What pisses me off is holier than thou pricks telling me I'm an idiot because I'm skeptical. The same people who were bitching about not being able to dissent in this country a few years ago are the same ones telling me now I have no basis to dissent on this issue. You can't have it both ways. You say that all of this is fact: I say you could be completely wrong. I have seen the magazine articles from 30 years ago that said without a doubt we were going to enter a new ice age. And how did that turn out? For all I know, you might be just as full of sh*t as they were. The bottom line is that studies like the one I posted from NOAA cause me to have my doubts about the validity of your argument because it refutes a central theme of the global warming debate. But no, anybody who is a global warming denier is just getting $10k a pop, or we don't "understand the science," or we are just "the ignorant getting duped into believing tobacco-esque scince." Well, you know what, f*ck you and the horse you rode in on. All you are doing is pissing people off. So, you know what, I'm going to climb into my gas guzzling, Detroit built SUV with the big blue oval on the front of it and do 95 up the interstate at 15 MPG just to piss you off.
And it isn't just the oil and coal companies politicizing the issue. Politicians on the left use it in the same way that politicians on the right use terrorism. "Scaring up votes" as Obama would say. Its all the same trick. Republicans try to convince you there is a terrorist around every corner, so we need to vote for them. Democrats try to convince you that global warming is going to kill off the human race, so we need to vote for them. They are all full of it, and I for one am tired of the politics of fear.
I have read, not sure on the exact number, I would guess its got to be close to 60, peer reviewed studies dealing with AGW, not one claimed any correlation between AGW and frequency of hurricanes. Every one of them that delt with ocean temperature did make a point to make the distinction between frequency of hurricanes and strength of hurricanes. The former we know very little about, the latter we know a good deal about.
The points you are trying to make tell a great deal about just how poor your understanding of the science behind global warming is, and just how little research you have done into the subject. If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, then don't parrot blatant lies and intentional mis-characterizations without first doing a little research yourself to see if they are true. Sorry, I am not going to treat anyone with respect who tries to call into debate scientific fact without taking a couple of hours to at least read some actual, peer reviewed SCIENCE on the subject first. You wouldn't sound any more ignorant if you were trying to claim that 2+2=37.
Your problem is that you don't know how to LISTEN. I am not trying to prove anything, so I don't have to do research. What I am trying to say is that I have skepticism reagarding the issue- AND THAT IS OKAY. It doesn't make me ignorant. I have more important things to do than spend 3 hours on the internet researching global warming. My point is that I hear conflicting reports coming from people, and I'm not talking about coming from two different sides. You can sit there and tell me all you want to that I haven't heard scientists, who believe in man-made global warming, say it causes increased freqency of hurricanes. The fact is, you haven't read everything I have, you haven't seen all the same interviews I have. Basically, you are calling me a liar because you don't agree with what i say i have heard. I am telling you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I have seen scientists say, with their own mouth, that global warming would cause an increase in frequency of hurricanes. You obviously disagree with that notion. I do to. But don't sit there and tell me that I never could have heard someone make that claim.
Okay, I had some down time at work, so I looked for 10 minutes on the internet and here is what I found. Study by Peter Webster and Greg Holland. I'll give you a quote:
Quote:Given the strong relationship between east Atlantic SST anomalies and tropical cyclone variability presented here and corroborated by several independent studies, we are led to the confident conclusion that the recent upsurge in tropical cyclone frequency is due in part to greenhouse warming and this is most likely the dominant effect.
Link:
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/holland/f...7final.pdf
Published in:
http://royalsociety.org/
Their journal site:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...52aa9&pi=0
Greg Holland's site:
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/holland/
Peter Webster's site:
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/
Do you still want to tell me that NOBODY is blaming increased hurricane frequency on global warming?
All I am trying to say is that there are conflicting opinions, and that causes me to be skeptical.
"Everything factual is, in a sense, theory. The blue of the sky exhibits the basic laws of chromatics. There is no sense in looking for something behind phenomena: they are theory."
- GOETHE
The only global warming going on is from overheated printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Count me in a skeptic who believes that global warming is a natural process and has nothing to do with man.
Our co2 emissions are a pop gun compared to volcanoes, ocean currents, and the location and temperature of the sun.
I just think it's funny how the global warming crowd tries to shame the "non-believers" by calling us deniers, in a subtle link to the nutty Holocaust deniers.
I would also like for people to explain to me why they are finding tree stumps underneath the melting glaciers, and also why are the Mars ice caps melting?
the fact we've had 4 ice ages, meaning we've had at least 3 warming periods [and each without 'evil capitalists' on the face of the earth] is plenty enough reason to doubt.