Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Hurricane Season and Global Warming

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

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

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

The operative phrase being "logically."

But then what could Greg Holland possibly know about the subject?

the interesting thing is that other meterologist have claimed the opposite, that the green house gasses have not had that affect. so which meterologist is right?

Hi dehammer, it would carry more weight if you could post some URLs that support the opposite point of view that you cite.

Otherwise, these topics just become shouting matches which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a tad pointless.

Thanks!

im not trying to argue it, just pointing out that the meteorologist cant agree. i cant give you a site, but its been mentioned several times. im not saying that global warming is not affecting the hurricans, but its an old arguement that is going on in the meteorology sections. of course some would say those that argue that point are not real scientist.

the point i want to make is just because one says it is, we should not accept it without question. when they can accurately predict hurricanes and storms, then we will have reason to accept their statements as solid. until then, its not fully accepted as beyound the shadow of a doubt. personally i would beleive it more if this guy quoted was not part of a group raising money for research in precisely this area.

If he's trying to draw scientific conclusions based on "logic" then he probably doesn't know diddly.

If he's saying that the globe is warming, he's correct, although the same temperature change inside your house wouldn't even be noticed.

If he's looking at short-term weather patterns and predicting Armageddon, then he's probably looking for grant money.

If he's saying that humans have changed global climate, then he's just partaking in your little theater of the absurd.

He is saying that humans HAVE changed the global climate.

So is just about every other researcher in the field in every country on the planet.

Records set in the Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2005

Most tropical storms: 28. Old record: 21 in 1933.

Most hurricanes: 15. Old record: 12 in 1969.

Most Category 5 hurricanes: 4 (Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma). Emily was upgraded to Category 5 upon re-analysis. Old record: 2 in 1960 and 1961.

Most hurricane names to be retired: 5 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma, and possibly others). Previous record: 4 in 1955, 1995, and 2004.

Most major hurricanes to hit the U.S.: 4 (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Wilma). Previous record: 3 in 1893, 1909, 1933, 1954, and 2004.

Latest end to a hurricane season: January 6 Previous record: January 5, for the 1954-55 hurricane season.

Two-Year Consecutive Total of Tropical Storms: 42 (previous record: 32 most recently in 1995-96)

Two-Year Consecutive Total of Hurricanes: 24 (previous record: 21 in 1886-87)

Two-Year Consecutive Total of Major Hurricanes: 13 (ties record in 1950-51)

Two-Year Consecutive Major Hurricane Landfalls: Seven (previous record: five in 1954-55)

Two -Year Consecutive Florida Major Hurricane Landfalls: Five (previous record: three in 1949-50)

Three-Year Consecutive Total of Tropical Storms: 58 (previous record: 43 most recently in 2002-04)

Three-Year Consecutive Total of Hurricanes: 31 (previous record: 27 in 1886-88)

Three-Year Consecutive Total of Major Hurricanes: 16 (ties record in 1949-51 and 1950-52)

Deadliest U.S. Hurricane since 1928: Katrina (at least 1,300)

Strongest Hurricane in the Atlantic Basin: Wilma 882 millibars (mb) (previous record: Gilbert at 888 mb)

Three of the six strongest hurricanes on record: Wilma 882 mb (1st), Rita 897 mb (4th), Katrina 902 mb (6th)

July hurricane: Emily (160 mph top sustained winds) (previous record: Dennis (150 mph) in 2005; Hurricane #1 (140 mph) in 1926.

Hurricane Epsilon became the longest lasting Atlantic hurricane on record for the month of December.

Tropical Storm Zeta beat Alice #2 (1954) as the longest-lived tropical cyclone to survive from December into January pushing the total number of storms to a record setting 27.

Humm is it just me or does there seem to be a moderate cyclic pattern to these heavy storm cycles??.. a weather pattern that has been DENIED by a few here, the proof of the pattern being found and proven, within Ice Core samples, now we have dates that dovetail with the Ice Cores, it must be a conspiracy.. dont worry morgan I wont mention any names..

...OPPS...

the real problem with stating things like this is that we dont have the long term data to back it up. they have been able to prove cycles in weather due to things like ice core, and tree rings. but the hurricane records and measurements are not old enough to really be able to prove that man is the sole cause of the storms being so bad. up until the last century, the water tempatures were not measured and even then, it was not done with the accuracy that statements like that require until later in the century.

that is why some meteorologist are saying the reverse. the thing is, they are not so newsworthy because there is no sensationalism for saying that the world is doing exactly what its done for a billion years. with no sensationalism, there is no news story. with no news story, it does not get any attension.

dehammer wrote:
"that is why some meteorologist are saying the reverse"

This is a science forum. Supply links to supporting information that is credible.

try this one

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

or this one

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/climate/NEWS/Nov30_2005c.htm

Thomas R. Knutson, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, predicts a 6 percent increase in intensity over 80 years, yet this is one of the worse case situation that they can come up with. Even he does not say that there will be more.

of course, you will likely claim these are not real scientist, since they dont agree with you.

CATO is not credible on science. Gong!

Read the credible link from beginning to end.

Did you?

If you did refer to my previous comments on your ability to comprehend what you read.

Sad. Very sad.

This from a guy who uses BBC LINKS!! LMAO... what a ham..

dehammer maybe you need to get a APPROVED list of scientists and orgs. from morgan first!

Still waitin for that POP morgan

BBC ... a reputable news organization

CATO ... well lets use their own words.

Source:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government."

Perhaps the concepts of politics <> science is beyond your scope. But not everyone on this planet is an American. Not everyone on this planet wants to be an American. And not everyone that is an American is all that thrilled with the CATO Institute's neo-con politics.

But one thing for sure ... you using them as a reference shows us that you can't separate philosophy from fact. Not exactly a huge surprise.

And what do you call NASA and ESA findings?

Archer asks:
"And what do you call NASA and ESA findings?"

Science.

Or did you forget the name of this site is SCIENCEagogo.com ... not karlrove.com. Take your spin doctoring to someone that is impressed. Try Mississippi.

how did i know that you would say that anyone that disagreed with you was not credible or a real science.

how sad


DA Morgan wrote:
BBC ... a reputable news organization...

of course. the ppl that wrote the article agreed with you so it has to be reputable

...CATO ... well lets use their own words.

Source:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government."

Perhaps the concepts of politics <> science is beyond your scope. But not everyone on this planet is an American. Not everyone on this planet wants to be an American. And not everyone that is an American is all that thrilled with the CATO Institute's neo-con politics.

But one thing for sure ... you using them as a reference shows us that you can't separate philosophy from fact. Not exactly a huge surprise.

what difference does it matter who hosted the site. its the statement by the scientist that is important. some sites will post things no matter how little news it makes. THEY are not worried about making headlines to get ppl to buy their papers.

the thing is you asked for a meteorologist that disagreed with you and instead of paying attension to the two ppl i gave you OR the fact the the one person that did the research that did agree with you said it was only 6 percent increase in intensity over the next 80 years.

this is your idea of a scientific debate. if you cant win the arguement on merit, find something to insult the other so that the arguement goes away from the facts you cant argue with.

Someone that is a reputable scientist that disagrees with me I respect. The Cato Institute?

ROFL!

then why are you discussing cato instead of the article and the person who wrote it. your focusing on something that has nothing to do with this thread rather that admit that there are scientist that disagree with the one that you quoted. even the ones that i found that did agree with you indicated that in 80 years there will be 6 percent more class 5 hurricanes. only 6 percent and that 80 years from now.

your appearantly claiming that its 200 percent and its now. if i miss reading what you are claiming, please enlighten me to where i missed the correction. what you are unwilling to accept is that there is a cycle to weather. the english navy long ago found that there were cycles to it. if im not mistaken its a 30 year cycle and we are in the middle of the worse part.

another problem i have is that ppl choise to use the number of deaths (as compaired to percentages of the population affected), and the property damage value (as compaired to the percentage of total property value of the area).

the number of ppl living in those areas double every few years, and the property value double even faster. just stating that the damage is so much more does not mean that the storm was worse. a single home damaged in the last storm would be more property damage done in a whole town a century ago. a century ago, a single death from a storm would have been a major percentage of many towns along the coast. today, it would not even be noticed out side of his circle of family and freinds. if new orleans had had the death toll from the last storm a century ago, it would have lost a large percentage of its population. this time, they say that everyone knows of some one that died. while this is bad, its not the same catagory. how can you claim the storm is worse because a certain number of ppl were killed, esp since many of them were killed because no one responded to their pleas for help in time. a century ago, they would not have died.

dehammer asks:
"then why are you discussing cato instead of the article and the person who wrote it."

Because you posted a link to Cato and the article. If you hadn't thought you could persuade someone in a science discussion with spin-doctored nonsense it would never have come up.

Want to discuss your inability to comprehend the other item you linked? Do it with your cat.