A final thought on the hurricane thing

[Scott Alister McKinley]

Just to clarify my actual position.

At some point in the next year, the American media narrative -- due to
heavy propagandizing from the Right -- will declare that we had a
"mild" year for hurricanes and that Al Gore continues to be an
Exaggerator when he defends putting a hurricane on the cover of his
book/documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

This will happen despite the FACTs that this year we saw the following
significantly non-"mild" events ...
--- Two category 5 storms that eventually made landfall
--- The second strongest storm to ever make landfall in Central America.
--- The fastest developing storm in the history of the Gulf of Mexico
(Tropical Depression to Hurricane in 18 hours).

I stand by the claims that surface temperatures are directly related
the intesities of hurricanes; and that global warming is a nontrivial
contributor to the rise in surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico
and Carribean

Again, global warming does not contribute to the number of low
pressure systems which can possibly turn into storms. However, it is
connected to the significant uptick in the _strength_ of systems which
come near the Southern US, Carribean and Central America.

-- Scott

[Scott Alister McKinley]

As advertised ... and I thought I would only see stuff like this on
Fox. CNN's weatherman toes the party line deriding Al Gore's
documentary. He calls this year's storms "throwaway" events. Tell
that to the people in Jamaica and Nicaragua.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_weatherman_applauds_global_warming_skepticism_1004.html

Play the clip. This stuff drives me up the wall.

-- Scott

[Louis Jeansonne]

Scott,

I'm still waiting to see some actual data that show that the storms are
stronger on average and that this is due to global warming. You've pointed
out that 1985 was not a bad year in terms of strength, and 2007 was, but I'd
really like to see some averages over time and correlation with temperature
changes. I'm also curious to hear how you think this theory could be proven
or disproven one way or the other. Even if hurricane strength is increasing
over the last 100 years, linking this to the 1 degree temperature rise we've
experienced is difficult. It's not as simple as the CO2 model.

The IPCC did conclude that it is "more likely than not" that hurricanes are
getting stronger due to global warming, but there is hardly a scientific
consensus on this issue, as there is on the issue of global warming in
general.

[Brandon Downey]

From what I've read, the issue is still not perfectly clear. However,
it is clear that just dismissing the claims as fictional on air is
more likely a case of ideology than meteorology.

While we might not have enough hard data to conclude that global
warming => stronger hurricanes, we might be able to devise some tests.

For instance, we might be able to measure the initial temperature of
water when hurricanes form and strengthen, and then try to isolate all
other factors (difficult, I'm sure) and look at hurricanes that form
over cooler waters. We might also be able to measure the 'velocity'
with which a hurricane gathers strength now, versus 50 or 100 years
ago (or however far back our records go). There's always computer
simulations -- if we can come up with a model of hurricane formulation
that predicts temperature == stronger hurricanes and is accurate wrt
other, independent variables.

More frustratingly, here's my biggest concern:

On the one hand, you have conservatives, who oppose even the
_acknowledgement_ of global warming and its effects, because they
favor a smaller government. Well, or, they favor not penalizing any of
the large businesses who support them for any role they may play in
this.

On the other hand, you have liberals, who do at least to some degree
are using global warming to drive their own agenda. Not that they
aren't correct, but I know some subset of people on the left happily
use global warming as a justification for larger government at larger
scales, or as a sop to the more 'religious environmentalists' (people
who are for the Earth the way that the religious right is for Jesus).

Both of these views are dangerous -- the right's moreso, I think,
since it's such a blindingly obvious ideological move that they end up
looking like the wrong side of the Scope's trial when they say the
earth isn't warming. But I see it from the left, too, with blind
opposition to nuclear power, or a refusal to take a nuanced approach
to environmental compromises.

It leaves me frustrated about the entire political process -- a real
problem, with no easy answers, and we're left with ideologues yelling
at each other, as usual.

[Erik Miller]

A page with some data about the frequency and strength of hurricanes is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hurricane-climatology.html

There is a great deal of variability between years and between decades in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes hitting the U.S. Taking any year and saying "This year shows that global warming is causing stronger hurricanes," or claiming "This year shows that global warming isn't a problem," are both equally weak arguments. The idea that warming up the oceans will drive up the strength of hurricanes, though, seems pretty reasonable.

Waiting for the 95% certainty that is typically used in science before a claim is made doesn't seem like a good idea as a prerequisite to dealing with carbon emissions. The only way to be sure that oceanic warming will lead to more intense hurricanes would be to pump out the CO2, warm up the ocean, and observe 15-20 consecutive years of significantly more powerful hurricanes. By that point, it would be too late to do much about it, and we'd have to give up on the idea of inhabiting (or insuring) the Gulf Coast and the state of Florida.

I get a little bit frustrated when people point to particular storms and events and attribute them to global warming, because it is a logically flawed claim and provides some fodder to the people who are arguing that we shouldn't do anything. Right now, any warming effects are pretty mild and we would probably be OK with current levels of carbon use. Look at the data (admittedly a bit old, but the trends are holding strong) here to see the problem that is coming:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html

Yes, Americans (300 million) use way too much carbon, and our emissions are growing. We need to get this under control, and probably can with changes to mileage standards and increases in conservation and efficiency. The impending Republican bloodbath in the 2008 elections may help with public policy, but that's another thread.

Look at the growth rate of carbon usage in China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.1 billion people). If these countries get to the point where they are using half as much carbon as we do now, we'd better start investing in Alaskan and Canadian properties. How can we address the issue, though? We don't really have the moral authority to insist that China and India freeze their carbon levels, as each person there is using about 10% of the energy that we do here. Energy prices will go up as 2 billion more people start living modern lifestyles, which will blunt the usage a bit. We should probably be developing and giving away technology for energy efficiency as quickly as possible, too. Other than that, I don't really know what we can do about it. The EU and UN can resolve all they want, but unless the US, China, and India get together and figure this out, the rest of it won't really matter.

Erik

____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

[Scott Alister McKinley]

I'm still not making myself clear. My concern here is the way
scientific facts are handled in mainstream media. I am not trying to
prove anything about global warming.

1) I, of all people, understand the scientific method.

2) The two hypotheses at play: a) global warming warms the Gulf; and
b) warm waters in the Gulf lead to stronger storms. (I emphasize the
Gulf because shearing effects are different in the Gulf than they are
in the open Atlantic.) Issue (a) is far from decided. Issue (b) has
a growing body of support.

3) The whole reason for this thread is this: Was 2007 a year that
supports the two above hypotheses; or was it not? My only claim ...
my ONLY claim ... is that this was a year that supports the two
hypotheses.

4) All I ask of CNN. Hire a weatherman that can recognize that there
were serious storms this summer, and just because it didn't affect the
U.S., doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It may take me a while, but by the end of the month, I'll gather some
relevant data for the larger claims in question, and see if there's
anything there.

-- Scott