What the hurricanes are trying to tell us 13 July 05

that increasing warmth leads to increased numbers of hurricanes is that it has no basis in theory or fact.

Last winter Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because Kevin Trenberth, while representing himself as an IPCC lead author made unfounded statements to the effect that increased warmth will cause increasing numbers of hurricanes.

This June, Trenberth vindicated Dr. Landsea’s resignation by publishing an essay in Science that includes this statement,

“Despite this enhanced activity, there is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land. The environmental changes that are under way favor enhanced convection and thus more thunderstorms. But to get a hurricane, these thunderstorms must first be organized into a tropical storm (which is essentially a collection of thunderstorms that develops a vortex). Model projections of how wind shear in the hurricane region responds to global warming caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tend to differ (14), and it is not yet possible to say how El Niñnd other factors affecting hurricane formation may change as the world warms.”

It appears that the number of climate scientists who support you opinion has diminished by one. Can you name any who still believe as you do?

However from my own study I found that people harmed by possible GW effects (flooding, etc) are less likely to believe that GW is a problem than those not so harmed. I figured it was because it’s hard for them to contemplate that the same or worse might happen to them or their property in the future & would rather consider the flood or hurricane or drought an anomoly that will not happen again in their lifetime. Unfortunately I was not able to achieve .05 significance (95% certainty) because my sample size was too small because the Public Opinion Lab at my university had been flooded the previous summer & we didn’t get enough time in it—an area that had never been flooded before, but had been predicted to be flooded due to GW in a report on GW, signed by then IL Gov. Jim Edgar (a Republican).

One of the misunderstandings about GW is that since the science is slow in establishing proof, it is assumed the GW harms are only in the future. It seems the way the science works is that as the science becomes stronger (with better & more evidence, analytic tools, etc), then it can go back into the past & attribute a portion of, say, hurricane intensity and hurricane frequency to a past hurricane or season of hurricanes – or to droughts (& deaths) in Africa in the 1970s, etc.

Apparently from the ABC News report last Friday, it is now scientifically established that GW is causing (has & will cause) increased intensity of hurricanes, and scientists are studying whether increased hurricane frequency is caused (that means 90-95% certainty) by GW, as the evidence is tending to indicate.

Science moves too slowly for me. I’d rather follow the precautionary principle of abating GW now, esp. in ways that save money & help the economy, and may be proven conclusively in the future to abate tremendous costs from GW harms. Any other tact is STUPID & an ARROGANT DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE & PROPERTY & GOD’S CREATION IN GENERAL! Contrarians, move out of the way, and let the rest of us save the world. And if your goal is to harm or destroy the world for whatever reason, then shame on you!

but that doesn’t mean that in reality (God only knows reality) GW is not increasing hurricane frequency. As mentioned below, the increased intensity seems now to have been scientifically established. Increased frequency makes some theoretical sense, and scientists are at work now on this – though, as you mention, it is an extremely complex issue & difficult to ferret out the impact of GW. Afterall, we are still in the midst of our little GW experiment on earth, taking in results as they come. What we should do it call off this diabolical GW experiment on earth. I think it would be wonderful if we reverse GW & never ever even find out at .05 whether it increased hurricane frequency.

What used to irk me in the 1990s was when weathermen & others would attribute an increased hurricane season or hurricane intensity to el nino, without letting us know that el ninos (which have to do with Pacific Ocean warming areas) themselves were increasing possibly due to GW. It’s sort of like blaming the gun for killing the person, without looking at the person who fired the gun.

Being from Miami, and having lived through some of the worst of Hurricane Andrew, I would agree that there was never any mention of global warming in connection with the event, either then or now. And I would agree with your theory to some extent, in that I and most others think of Andrew as a single catastrophic event – an anomoly – much like the unexpected hurricane of 1926 (which is certainly not attributable to GW).

However, I think that most in South Florida do expect more hurricanes, storms, and flooding; it is the nature of living in a place like this. Maybe you refer to areas in which these occurrences are not common. But if you look at events described in High Tide, such as the flooding and lack of snowfall in Britain, many do attribute it to GW.

As we all know, hurricane formation depends on more than a single factor, or we would see a direct correlation between number/strength of hurricanes and ocean temperature (or time perhaps). I believe that Lynn is right in saying that some GW effects are more difficult to establish than others, and this is one in which that definitely holds true.

In the mean time, I need to go put up some hurricane shutters.

Stephen

stop warming!

The problem with you expressing your unfounded opinion that increasing warmth leads to increased numbers of hurricanes is that it has no basis in theory or fact.

Actually, it has basis in theory, which is why we’re talking about it.

See, GCMs say they should incrs in intensity and number.

HTH,

D

...don’t forget there was a named storm in the South Atlantic as well.

I don’t think there’s enough evidence to give you a strong r^2 to point to yet.

Certainly there is enough evidence to warrant a caution to policymakers that increasing intensity and numbers of hurricanes are a possibility in the future – after all, this is a public safety issue.

Best,

D

If you are correct then why did Landsea resign after Trenberth said the same thing? In addition, why did Trenberth say, “Despite this enhanced activity, there is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers . . .”?

You disagree with Landsea and Trenberth. Perhaps you should publish a response to Trenberth’s essay in science (Science, Vol 308, Issue 5729, 1753-1754, 17 June 2005). The essay is available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5729/1753.

See, computer models and theory are different things.

Furthermore, other theory (the non-computer model kind) says hurricanes are heat engines that transfer heat from the tropics to the poles; that they are driven by the temperature gradient and thus likely to be less frequent if (as AW theory says it will) carbon dioxide warming lessens the temperature difference between the tropics and poles. I find that theory to be more compelling.

For UK weather damage info I’ve found the Association of British Insurers (ABI) illuminating. They are at http://www.abi.org.uk/ I guess there is a US equivalent.

The insurance industry collects lots of data and does some serious number crunching. They have a very understandable focus on prediction and the future. I think I’m correct in saying they have a concern for profit and the interests of shareholders and customers. Hard to portray them as lefty-eco-alarmist-rabble rousers don’t you think?

I’d encourage contrarian lobbyists and others to check out the US insurance industry and get back to us with the results.

Douglas Coker

I doubt you’ve read the essay, as it’s behind a sub.

I have, however.

Did the anti-science/denialist or indy-Funded website that cherry-picked from the article include the last 3 paras:

Thus, although variability is large, trends associated with human influences are evident in the environment in which hurricanes form, and our physical understanding suggests that the intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing (8), even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test. Model results (14) suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes.

Trends in human-influenced environmental changes are now evident in hurricane regions. These changes are expected to affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers remains unclear. The key scientific question is not whether there is a trend in hurricane numbers and tracks, but rather how hurricanes are changing.

Kinda like whut I wuz sayin’ below.

Oh, and wrt to your theory argument, you forgot about intensity. Anyway, Landsea is saying the theory is not good enough to say how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land. he’s not saying there’s no theory.

And, lastly:

In addition to interannual and multidecadal variability, there is a nonlinear upward trend in SSTs over the 20th century. This trend is most pronounced in the past 35 years in the extratropical North Atlantic (see the first figure). It is associated with global warming and has been attributed to human activity.

You still gonna use this guy in your tout?

D

I am not a scientist but have been reading quite a lot about climate change recently. I think one can quite clearly link the current strong hurricane season to climate change even if climate scientists are not certain what the trend will be in 30 years or so:

Since 1995, every hurricane season (except during the strongest El Nino event) has been more active than average. Surely this is not a short-term blip in the weather – like the extremely active 1916 hurricane season not to be repeated for many decades. I understand that when weather patterns consistently change over a lengthy period then this is the definition of climate change. Never mind if it has been foreseen in any models, how it can be explained, etc. This year’s (so far) record hurricane season was predicted by NOAA who don’t even mention global warming in this context:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html

NOAA say that their forecast is based on there not being an El Nino event, and on higher than average sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic.

So,the most credible forecast done by a US federal agency links storm activity to higher sea surface temperatures – no other reason has ever been suggested to my knowledge. Given that average sea surface temperatures are up in all the world’s oceans – it’s global warming by definition – where is the controversy?!

As for long-range climate forecasts, some models suggest that El Ninos could become ever more frequent if not the almost constant state in a warmer climate – in which case Atlantic hurricanes might become less at that stage. This is why scientists will not agree that hurricane activity will, in the long term, increase – but this is a totally different issue, nothing to do with explaining the present. I would suggest that what Mark Lynas says about the reason behind the hurricanes is not very different from translating the NOAA hurricane forecast and explanation into plain English.

By the way, as to your claim that the enhancement of plant growth will attenuate because the plants will consume nitrogen faster than mineralization can replace it, Springer, et al have published results from their study of trees growing in plus 200 ppm air. The report, see Springer, C.J., DeLucia, E.H. and Thomas, R.B. 2005. Relationships between net photosynthesis and foliar nitrogen concentrations in a loblolly pine forest ecosystem grown in elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. Tree Physiology 25: 385-394, says that no such effect has shown up in the six years of the ongoing study.

Springer et al say that they “found little evidence of CO2-induced changes in foliar N concentration or loss of stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 in the study trees,” and that “the primary effect of long-term exposure to elevated CO2 in the Duke Forest FACE experiment has been the strong sustained enhancement of photosynthesis.”

That does not seem to fit into your worldview.

Hurricanes are formed by the interaction of cold polar air and warm tropical air,

Since all global warning models predict the northern latitudes will be most effected global warming this should in theory decrease the number and severity of hurricanes.

In the real world the yearly pattern of hurricanes and their severity follows a chaotic model and has ever since people have been recording their occurence.

Using hurricanes to reinforce your world view that people are irrevocably screwing up the planet is equivalent to the way the wise men in olden times predicted the future by looking at animal entrails

Wrong again. I subscribe to Science Magazine. I have a copy of that particular issue on my desk. I read the entire essay.

Nothing in the paragraphs that you posted or anywhere else in the essay supports the claim that AW will change the frequency or track of future hurricanes, which was Mark’s original claim.

I am aware that researchers, using more unvalidated computer models, have predicted that future hurricanes, spawned in warmer waters will be more intense. As I remember, they claimed that the intensities would increase from 4 to 6 percent. To date observational data have not confirmed that prediction.

I did not say that there is no theory of hurricane formation. I said that the theory does not support Mark’s opinion. That is consistent with Landsea’s statement.

Trenberth’s claim that, “This trend is most pronounced in the past 35 years in the extratropical North Atlantic (see the first figure). It is associated with global warming and has been attributed to human activity.” also is based on computer model output and wants for verification by observations.

Nothing in the essay contradicts anything that I have written.

1. Please cite work properly. Thank you.

Now,

There are, literally, dozens of papers on FACE, and esp. from Duke forest.

But my point I repeat often that you seem to want to address has nothing to do with forests.

The papers that look at graminaceous N apportionment find less N in the endosperm. This paper has nothing to do with that contention.

The paper you refer to, and its like, find also in elevated CO2 environs that N and water are limiting factors:

Another difficulty in predicting the response of photosynthesis to elevated [CO2] involves the common observation that, in long-term studies, the degree of photosynthetic stimulation by elevated [CO2] sometimes declines by about 20% over time (Gunderson and Wullschleger 1994, Medlyn et al. 1999). The loss of stimulation is typically characterized by a decline in leaf nitrogen (N) and Rubisco ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/ oxygenase) that leads to a reduction in photosynthetic capacity (Stitt 1991, Long and Drake 1991, Bowes 1993, Sage 1994, Norby et al. 1999). Many forest ecosystems are N-limited (Vitousek and Howarth 1991) and higher growth rates and increased resource demands of plants growing in elevated [CO2] may exacerbate nutrient limitations (Ingestad and Stoy 1982). Consequently, a reduction in the response of photosynthesis to elevated [CO2] may be a common occurrence in ecosystems that have a low availability of soil N (Radoglou et al. 1992, Tissue et al. 1993, Sage 1994, El Kohen and Mousseau 1994, Curtis et al. 1995), such as piedmont loblolly pine forests (Piatek and Allen 2000, Richter et al. 2000). [ Springer et al. pg. 385 ]

This paper is just like the others, and I have no problem with them or this one.

HTH,

D

I did not say that there is no theory of hurricane formation. I said that the theory does not support Mark’s opinion.

Hmmm…

Mark, The problem with you expressing your unfounded opinion that increasing warmth leads to increased numbers of hurricanes is that it has no basis in theory or fact.

You forgot what you wrote.

Want to try again?

D

Andrei,

increased warming means warmer ocean temps and more WV in the lower atmosphere, driving tropical cyclone formation.

HTH,

D

Can you not read for comprehension?

Did you not read the sentences that you just posted?

Have you never studied symbolic logic?

but they haven’t been as receptive to GW cautions as insurers elsewhere. One of their tacts, is simple to withdraw coverage (for floods, hurricanes) in high risk areas.

which might be suppressing the effect of GW. So I hope & pray you & yours are okay.

I lived in Florida when Agnes struck in 1971 or 1972; hurricanes are terrifying.

Certainly the hurricane of 1926 was not impacted by GW (or not impacted hardly at all), but that Andrew may have been made a bit more intense by GW, but that this may only be known for sure far in the future (assuming we people are still around to study things).

The other issue is that a small increment of added intensity due to AGW may be the difference between relatively minor damage & the roof blowing off or a person being killed. That is, though GHGs & GW increase slowly & incrementally, the harms & effects might not follow a linear function, but may go haywire, as when an extra few inches of a flood breach a levy & flood a huge city, following some function in what mathematics calls catastrophe theory. I don’t know much about this, but I thought it might be applicable to GW harms. It would certainly fit hurricanes, which are so wild & difficult to predict. Then we also need to ferret out what is caused by natural causes v. what might be caused by GW – with GW being that straw that breaks the camel’s back (not the much larger natural causes that simply bring us to the brink of disaster).

I think Norbert & other contrarians would like to have it the other way around – figuring in the face of a large disaster that GW alone did not cause it, ergo GW is not it any way to be blamed, even though without AGW it would not have been a disaster but a minor harm.

You’re right, norb:

you were defending two different things.

You first claimed there was no theory that stated increasing warmth leads to increased numbers of hurricanes, then when I said that was incorrect you claimed the theory of hurricane formation does not support Mark’s opinion that warming will lead to more and stronger storms this year.

My bad.

D

Just to clarify:

Trends in human-influenced environmental changes are now evident in hurricane regions. These changes are expected to affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers remains unclear. The key scientific question is not whether there is a trend in hurricane numbers and tracks, but rather how hurricanes are changing.

Trenberth, K 2005. Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming. Science 308:5729 pp. 1753-1754. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1112551]

This might agree with Mark and disagree with norb, despite norb purportedly using the paper to boost his tout.

This may get lost in all the handwaving.

D

Indianola: Flattened by a hurricane in 1875, rebuilt only to be flattened again in 1886. In fact Indianola has been used as a metaphor for lost causes.

Or what about Galveston demolished by a hurricane in 1900 quite possibly the largest natural disaster in American history.

The oil industry was in its infancy then and there was not a SUV in the entire United states when these events occurred.

Using the accepted on definition of a Hurricane 6 struck the continental US in 1916 and 6 also hit 1985. Are you going to ascribe the high incidence in 1916 to a random natural event and the 1985 to Global warming?

As I understand it many Hurricane specialists say Hurricane activity has been quieter in recent years than normal and that we may be entering a period of more typical hurricane activity.

Who reeally knows?

Thanks for sharing these stories, Andrei. I’m not sure if they address the fact that increased warming means warmer ocean temps and more WV in the lower atmosphere, driving tropical cyclone formation, but they are interesting nonetheless.

Best,

D

which shows I’m not up to snuff on the topic (I had thought the el ninos correlate with or cause the hurricanes).

Anyway, might it be a case of relative ocean warmth (rather than absolute), so that if the warming in a particular year is higher in the Atlantic than Pacific (even if the Pacific is warming than average & in an el nino state), then the hurricanes will be greater in the Atlantic? And vice versa for the Pacific, with a relatively warming Pacific causing greater cyclones there? And if that’s the case then perhaps the world total hurricanes/cyclones might increase in frequency with GW, along with their intensity (which seems already to have been linked to GW). I don’t know, but perhaps we have to look at the total world picture rather than just regionally. And if all that’s the case, then perhaps if both the Atlantic & Pacific are about equally warm in a given year, then world total of such storms might be reduced that year (but not their intensity, which would remain high)???

I understand that’s just one big everlasting hurricane, due to runaway global warming. Now scientists reassure me that such cannot happen on Earth unless the sun gets a lot lot hotter, maybe in some billions of years. However, we could have a sneak preview within a few hundred to a few thousand years if we trigger a runaway situation where our human-produced warming induces nature to release more GHGs in a positive feedback fashion, perhap melting methane clathrates in the ocean, which may release huge methane burps, spiralling the warming way high, and killing off much of life on earth (granted it would stabilize well before reaching Venus conditions – which is not much solace to us life forms).

That is apparently what happened 251 million years ago on earth at the end-Permian extinction, when up to 95% of life on earth died. It was triggered by natural causes then (volcanoes, etc), but now we are pulling the trigger.

Hopefully Mark’s book on the topic will come out soon.

Hi Lynn, I did a bit of digging around. The US insurance industry is more difficult to fathom than here in the UK. Googling shows few if any national sites, lots of state sites, lots of selling and clear signs of the different societies we have either side of the pond.

But I did come across this. AIR is Applied Insurance Research. Here is an extract from a recent press release.

“AIR Worldwide Analysis Determines Potential Impact of Climate Change on Insured Losses BOSTON, Jun. 29, 2005 – An analysis AIR Worldwide Corporation (AIR) conducted for the Association of British Insurers (ABI) determined that if U.S. hurricane wind speeds increased by as little as 6 percent on average, insured losses could increase by as much as 75 percent per year. AIR’s analysis was conducted for the ABI’s special report called “The Financial Risk of Climate Change,” which was released today at an ABI-sponsored conference in London. AIR also analyzed the potential impact of increased typhoon intensity in Japan and windstorm frequency in Europe on estimated insured losses.”

This is at http://www.air-worldwide.com/_public/html/newsitem.asp?ID=762 and there is a link to the ABI where there is more available www.abi.org.uk/climatechange.

So there is interest in the US insurance business in climate change. They are working with the ABI who have been on the case for some time. Both the AIR site and the ABI site are worth browsing. I think it’s a case of watch this space. Maybe we should challenge the contrarian lobbyists to a bet (wager) on the content of future reports.

Douglas Coker

My original comment to Mark Lynas was, “Mark, The problem with you expressing your unfounded opinion that increasing warmth leads to increased numbers of hurricanes is that it has no basis in theory or fact.”

I went on to say, “Dr. Chris Landsea resigned . . . because Kevin Trenberth, . . . made unfounded statements to the effect that increased warmth will cause increasing numbers of hurricanes.”

My next paragraph quoted Trenberth’s essay, “Despite this enhanced activity, there is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks . . .”

You have not corrected anything in that post, nor was I defending two things.

That post did not mention the strength of storms.

1. Your assertion was there was no theoretical basis to the statement about increased numbers of hurricanes.

2. You then quoted from KT’s essay to back your tout.

3. You forgot to read KT’s statement:

Trends in human-influenced environmental changes are now evident in hurricane regions. These changes are expected to affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers remains unclear. The key scientific question is not whether there is a trend in hurricane numbers and tracks, but rather how hurricanes are changing.

4. This means there’s a theoretical basis.

5. You haven’t addressed the plant issue above.

HTH,

D

Doug,

Swiss RE and Munich RE are the two big reinsurers over there.

Best,

D

I say this because our last car insurance co sent customers a folksy magazine 4 times a year, and it always had articles about great open road travel places. In fact it took me some time before I figured it was put out by our insurance agency, and I thought, “Are they crazy, encouraging people to drive around?” If I were running it, I’d write about vacations in your own backyard, places to go by train or air, or (safe) hobbies at home, encouraging people not to engage in behaviors that have higher risks of car accidents.

The only other explanation is that somehow U.S. insurers are in cahoots with the oil industry. I think I did read something about that, that they are heavily invested in oil. And, as mentioned, they just simply close shop & move out, or extremely jack up rates if there’s any high risk situation.

I tried writing letters to that magazine, such as tips to reduce GHGs and save money, but they never printed them, even in their “letters to the editor” section. I really think that many of the American insurance companies are quite hostile to considering GW, just a most people and business here are.

I think GW sort of goes against the American world view of an ever expanding economy (like the endless frontier). Americans cannot accept any limits. We are in this state of denial, because GW is such a huge challenge to our world view. Perhaps living on a island you understand limits, edges, and boundaries, and have learned to live & be happy within these.

The early earth was much like Venus is today. For early life forms oxygen was a deadly poison. Then photosynthesising bacteria evolved and polluted the atmosphere with oxygen, killed off most but not all of the life forms that couldn’t tolerate oxygen.

The point is the earth and its atmosphere have been constantly evolving for 4000,000,000 years give or take and this process has never stopped, it continues today. Like it or not we are part of this process as are the krill in the southern ocean and hippopotami in the Zambesi river.

To be sure as the dominant species we do have a greater impact on the future evolution of the earth and its environment and we should undertake to understand the long term consequences of our actions. But to automatically assume that we are responsible for everything that nature throws at us which negatively impacts us makes no sense to me whatsoever.

What we need to do is be ready for the next challenge nature throws our way and confront it.

The people of Indianola gave up and moved away, the people of Galveston built a seawall to mitgate the effects of Hurricanes on their community. Today Galveston is a thriving city and Indianola is nothing.

My original post argued that the laws of thermodynamics imply that if the cool polar air meeting the warm tropical oceans is the engine that drives hurricane formation, warming the polar air would reduce the occurence and severity of hurricanes.

Your argument is that the warmer sea would do the reverse. Most Global warming theories I have read suggest the effect of GW would be most marked in polar regions, thus the temperature differential between the cool polar air and the warm tropical oceans should be reduced.

Sorry I got distracted by discussing the fact that Hurricanes have been a fact of life for ever and that their frequency and severity have varied greatly since the time we have been recording them.

That should have been a different thread

It’s interesting to have a look at the SST data [for example on the Met Office website at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/ncof/foam/browser.html]. SSTs just north of the equator in the Atlantic are currently 1-2 degrees above Levitus [a climatology but I’m not sure for what basis period] over a large region 5-25N, even reaching an anomaly of about 3 degrees. I’m pretty sure this is the hurricane forming region.

For what it’s worth the 3-day forecasts even have SST increasing slightly…

Incidentally, I heard about the latest NAO forecast for this winter yesterday. It suggests that northern Europe could have a cold, dry winter. Not good for the resevoirs…

“The earth has always been changing, and always will, even after we insignificant humans are long extinct.”

Of course, those rich off of oil profits are probably already making plans for settling Mars….

Unfortunately the argument does absolutely nothing to reduce our GHGs or the scientifically fact that they are contributing to current GW, and already doing great harm.

Last night ABC’s Nightline had a program about the mass extinction that is underway due in large part to GW (& other human-caused factors). That really surprised me, since the last Nightline program I saw on GW (I don’t always watch) was in 1995, right after 95% certainty on AGW was established, on “Is Science for Sale?” (about Gore’s accusation that oil/coal are funding skeptics). It was in the pro-con format, with skeptics planting large seeds of doubt, so an unaware viewers would dismiss GW. The sponsor was Texaco. So, I suppose that even if science is not for sale, at least the media are!

Don’t know what SST or Levitus means, or what you’re trying to say. Even WV (which Dano used) – to me in anthropology that’s my shorthand for world view.

But to automatically assume that we are responsible for everything that nature throws at us which negatively impacts us makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I’m just guessing, but the likely reason it makes no sense is that it’s a red herring.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. —Chief Seattle

D

that you believe to be convincing in the order of their appearance

1 “Trends in human-influenced environmental changes are now evident in hurricane regions.”

I do not believe that anyone has demonstrated that any human-influenced environmental changes are evident anywhere. The data show that the atmosphere has not behaved as the AGW hypothesis says that it should.

2 These changes are expected to affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers remains unclear.

This line says that someone or something expects changes in hurricane intensity and rainfall. I assume that it is Trenberth, but he provides no documentation to that effect. Insofar as I know, one group has predicted relatively minor (7% or so) increases in hurricane intensity. That conclusion arose from an undocumented computer model. The climate has warmed by about 0.6 C degrees, which is about 1/4 of the predicted warming with no apparent increase in hurricane intensity. Why do we believe that future warming will increase intensity when warming so far has not?

3 The key scientific question is not whether there is a trend in hurricane numbers and tracks, but rather how hurricanes are changing.

This describes a question. It is not proof of anything. The answer to the question, “How are hurricanes changing?” could be, “They are not changing”.

Norbert,

It’s sometime since we corresponded, but I find it incredible that you believe this:

“I do not believe that anyone has demonstrated that any human-influenced environmental changes are evident anywhere.”

As far as I can see, it is all around us! Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Best,

Peter

I was responding to Trenberth’s claim that human-induced climate (i.e. temperature) changes are influencing the climate in which hurricanes form. I acknowledged during one of our exchanges (the one with the Philadelphia Eagles, I believe) that it is likely that increased carbon dioxide concentration has caused a small part of the temperature rise that we have observed. However, I do not think that anyone has demonstrated that the human-induced portion is significant and I do not think that the small human contribution has influenced hurricane formation or intensity in any way.

Clearly, humans have influenced the environment.

Hi,

Just if anyone is interested. I protested at gleneagles last week. Was fun, I didn’t smash up sterling either.

I have posted my blog on my site which is www,m-reading.co.uk Just click on the clown. I would be interested if anyone noticed the difference between the mainstream press reporting at whas is genuinly the truth of the situation.

Cheers Ian.

What is needed is massive, peaceful turn-outs. I remember when Filipinos deposed Marcos – they (businessperson, housewives, school children, everyone clogged the streets, and in front of the tanks and guns got down on their knees and started praying. It was over in no time – the military joined with them.

I’ve printed out the press release for the exxposeexxon.com boycott, and am handing it out to Exxon service stations in my area.

I was in Berkeley in the late 60s, but (you won’t believe this), I came from a Republican, very conservative family background, so I trusted the gov & was appalled by and afraid of the anti-war protesters. My education into reality came very slowly over the decades. But I do remember that one protester, a man up on a roof, was killed – that was in the student newspaper & known well to us all – but it was never reported by the mainstream press & no one outside of Berkeley knew about it.

The press is usually on the side of the powerful, not the protesters – even if the powerful are totally wrong & the protesters totally right.

In fact at an anti-GMO protest in Chicago I participated in (I think in 2000), some journalist spoke about how they were fired for trying to report on GMOs – so the American people, quite frankly, don’t know squat about GMOs & not much about GW (except the idea that the scientists have disproved it). And nothing about MSG & its 50+ different names, & the poisoning/drugging of our food supply.

Expected by Tues or Wed …

So now its our turn to batten down the hatches.

Thanks Dano

After a quick look Swiss Re is the more useful and impressive. It doesn’t quite have data in a form which will help with the hurricane debate although further digging around may reveal some.

But there is a lot of very useful information in the Swiss RE site and there is a site within a site – http://www.thegreatwarming.com/ – which is global warming campaign site. It promotes a TV programme “The Great Warming”, aired in Canada, based on a book which appears similiar to “High Tide”.

I wonder how we get this programme aired in the US and here in the UK?

Douglas Coker

I do not believe that anyone has demonstrated that any human-influenced environmental changes are evident anywhere.

I take it you mean to say: besides CO2 atm ppmv, CH4 atm ppmv, etc. Also, you presumably aren’t talking about human landcover changes, oceanic dead zones, fish overharvesting, passenger pigeon exinction, rainforest destruction, PDBEs in orcas, etc.

The data show that the atmosphere has not behaved as the AGW <s>hypothesis</s> theory says that it should.

What data? reference plz. Be sure to include the temp trends from the GHCN.

This line says that someone or something expects changes in hurricane intensity and rainfall. I assume that it is Trenberth, but he provides no documentation to that effect.

That’s um, because it’s the conclusion and his evidence has gone before.

Why do we believe that future warming will increase intensity when warming so far has not?

Well, gosh, what about the warming in the oceans? Don’t forget that.

This describes a question. It is not proof of anything. The answer to the question, “How are hurricanes changing?” could be, “They are not changing”.

So what? You don’t understand the context of why I used it. The point is there is a theoretical basis, despite your original assertion.

D

We don’t want one of the most eloquent voices of reason from your side of the pond in harm’s way.

We had a small Tornado in Coventry a few weeks back. Bizzare, we just don’t get Tornados in the UK.

We’ll be thinking of you.

keep safe

Colin

Hello Everyone,

I have not been writing as much on the blog lately; however, be assured I read everyone’s comments and the discussions are going very well.

My first knowledge of Mark Lynas came from reading his article on Hurricanes last year in the Washington Post which led me to read his book High Tide and later to this blog site.

Now, NBC News which is a major network new organization in the USA did a short piece on the rise in the number of hurricanes so early in this season. I heard the NBC News anchor say emphatically in regard to this that:

“…global warming had nothing to do with it”

Now, I concede the fact that many variables contribute to the formation of hurricanes and special weather conditions are responsible for steering hurricanes toward land instead of the open ocean. These are facts and it would be incorrect to say global warming is the only cause of the current early rise in the number of hurricanes. Saying that global warming is the sole cause would be inaccurate.

However, I find the statement made by NBC to be equally misrepresentative to suggest emphatically that global warming had nothing to do with the current season so far. No one on the planet can truly make that claim and support it. NBC did mentioned decadal cycles and a mass of high pressure air making the hurricanes veer toward land. This may or may not be directly associated with GW. That may be debatable.

Now, NBC did mention that the Atlantic surface temperature was 2 F – 4 F degrees higher and this was one of the main contributing variables causing more hurricanes to form. For me, this makes any assertion that GW is not a factor very incredulous.

Surely, the increase in ocean surface temperature is due to warming. Warming is what raises the surface temperature of the oceans or did I miss something here. Surely, the oceans cover 70 percent of the earth’s surface and they are connected globally and affect the climate globally.

Now, using deductive reasoning, I would have to conclude that if oceans are global and if the surface is warming, and if the ocean-surface warming is a basic variable contributing to the formation of hurricanes according to NBC, then how can the anchor of a major news organization say that “global warming has nothing to do with it” after presenting these basic facts?

When you consider the irresponsibility of the media here in the USA, it is no wonder why average citizens in the USA can be confused or wonder if they can believe anything they hear. It is worse when the facts presented do not accurately support the conclusion rendered.

Best regards to all and my condolences to all those in the UK who suffered through the recent bombings. Good luck to Lynn with Emily.

Dan

SST is sea surface temp. I think. Take care with the approach of emily. cheers Tara

SST = Sea Surface Temp Levitus = NODC (Levitus) World Ocean Atlas 1998 WV = Water Vapor

You can use Google and enter “abbreviation:” and it will give you a list.

HTH,

D

The reason why I found the statement by NBC disturbing is that by claiming absolutely no possible connection between global warming and hurricanes is that the listening audience may never make any connection even if it is a weak one.

Why this disturbs me is that very little information or focus about GW is occurring in America and when Americans cannot even make a weak association between GW and hurricanes, then the number of hurricanes or their intensity and damage may have no effect on raising the degree of concern about GW.

The people attempting to influence the culture here are in the vast minority. It seems for real progress to happen, a larger percentage of our general population has to be more concerned and proactive about GW/CC.

I saw the NBC statement as a possible setback to the overall effort of those who desire to see our culture move forward. I failed to include these thoughts in my previous post on this topic.

Best to all,

Dan Dan

making them totally incredulous, since Friday before last (before Dennis), they had a piece where scientists (forgot their names) were saying that after much study they had concluded that GW was increasing the intensity of hurricanes, and that they were currently studying whether GW was increasing the frequency of them. The jury was still out – which is a long way from “GW has nothing to do with hurricanes.”

Since scientists have long been saying that GW is expected to increase the intensity & frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, my response to the naysayers re whether Andrew or Dennis may have been exascerbated by GW is: WE ONLY HAVE WORSE TO EXPECT IN THE FUTURE, if we keep on sending up GHGs.

In the ABC report (as in the NBC report) they mentioned that ocean warming was a primary cause – so I came to the same conclusion as you did, Dan. I figure in the past there might be occasional regional warming in a natural fluctuation manner that was contributing to hurricanes, but now whatever warming contributing to current hurricanes that could be attributed to GW (& last fall they did find GW was warming the oceans), to that extent GW is contributing to hurricanes, and would certainly continue to do so in the future, when the oceans really catch up with the warming.

Another red flag is that the past fluctuations of regional ocean warming (e.g., el ninos, etc.), I think, when it caused more cyclone in the Pacific, would caused decreased cyclones in the Atlantic, & vice versa, but now this year it seems there is also an increase in cyclones in the Pacific, as well as Atlantic. I’m not sure about this, so jump in if you know more about it… At any rate everyone is remarking about how unusual it is for so many big hurricanes to come to the Atlantic so early in the year (maybe the timing is due to GW, if nothing else).

And, of course, we are on very safe ground with flooding & droughts & heat waves when we say GW is contributing to these. I think there is very little debate about that in the scientific community (except for maybe the magnitude of that contribution). So reason enough to reduce GHGs!

I wonder if there is some malign intent behind the ABC & NBC claims?

In general I am not one for conspiracy theories but I am currently staying in NYC with an old university friend, Chris Bryson, who has written a book about “The Flouride Deception” and he has opened my eyes to how news can be manipulated.

http://www.drdefelice.com/books/tfd.html

that causes the most damage & may mean the difference between minor harm entailing self-repairs, and the roof being blown off or the house smashed. Regular hurricanes are a real bear; GW-enhanced hurricanes are a terrible monster.

I agree re the public. It sickens my heart that people won’t attribute any cause to GW now. (My ears are still ringing from when Jim Leherer, referring to GW, said “which SOME scientists claim is happening.) The media should have simply said that the scientists are studying it, and have not come to definite conclusions. Or, better, scientist predict that GW will increase the frequency & intensity of extreme weather events, like hurricanes, but they have not been able to conclusively link GW to the current hurricane frequency.

Another problem is that people are still confusing GW with the ozone hole, so perhaps when they hear the ozone hole is mending, they may think GW is history.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ever since I studied geography at University 20 years or so ago, I have looked at seemingly natural landscapes and have considered how they have been changed by humans. This has also been strongly influenced by books like “Green History of the World”, “Guns, Germs & Steel”, “Environmental History of the 20th Century” etc. etc.

So, I suppose I am very open to the idea that humans are changing the environment.

It appears that the scientific work about human-influenced global warming is extremely strong. I have just read all 3 letters from the climate scientists to Barton’s request(posted yesterday, 18 July 2005) on http://www.realclimate.org/ and I think this presents a compelling argument on the science.

As regards hurricanes and Global Warming – it certainly sounds credible to me – and it would be interesting to see how the science develops on this. I hope it is studied in detail.

Just a thought – I sometimes wonder whether your objections are less a “scientific” challenge to Mann et. al and more a sceptical, philosphical challenge.

Regards,

Peter