The last word on hurricanes? 21 July 05

That’s really a bigger problem than simply an increase in frequency. They write that CO2 doubling is expected ONLY to increase winds 7-16 mph (1/2 a category). In “geological” terms “only” sounds fine, but in human terms, as I often mention, that last 7-16 mph can be a huge difference, causing damages to sky-rocket. The cause-effect function is not linear, but could be catastrophic (in mathematics’ terms of “catastrophe theory”).

By contrarians & the media saying that GW does not impact hurricanes, they tend to give the impression that GW has no negative consequences at all, or has been disproved (I appreciate the 2nd para of the W’s article for setting that straight). It irks me as a taxpayer who helps fund public education that the public is so unenlightened & swayed by stupid arguments.

BTW, Emily decided not to visit us directly; its eye traveled about 80 miles south of us. Relatively few people in my area were badly affected.

Eventually contrarians might be right, I predict. I started a novel years ago set in the year 2080, when GW effects are getting big enough not to dismiss. The reality principle has kicked in, despite the best efforts of contrarians to deny GW, and no one denies GW & its effects anymore. In fact there has been a shift from underattributing effects to GW (as per today)to overattributing effects, so that the public is attributing every bad thing, including volcanism, earthquakes, etc. to GW.

I got a glimpse of it this year when a person in India suggested that the tsunami was caused by GW (which is mainly caused per capita by people in rich nations). When I explained that it was not, he then went on to suggest that it was caused by the U.S. doing nuclear bomb testing under the ocean. Again, I told him that tsunamis are naturally occurring events, but have not been as prominent in the Indian Ocean as the Pacific, where Japan get hit more often.

However, (I didn’t express it to the man) I did sort of think way in the back of my mind that maybe a warming world just might increase earthquakes (incl tsunamis) & volcanos far in the future when the earth gets really hot – sort of the way eggs sometimes crack when you boil them. That’s my “kitchen science” hypothesis. I expect, though, that real scientists would laugh that hypothesis out of existence.

The O’Brien passage that contained the word “support” says, ” . . . there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming.” I take “scientific support” to mean sound theoretical reasons. I also note that O’Brien used the word “or” to separate “support” from “correlation”. All of which means that he was not using “support” to mean “correlation” as you supposed.

Your abstract (which is of the article to which I alluded earlier) says, “idealized hurricanes, simulated idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer . . . “

and

“1300 five-day idealized simulations”

and

“The large-scale thermodynamic boundary conditions for the experiments . . . are derived from nine different . . . climate models. The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1%7yr CO2 increase.

and

“may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.”

and

“The present study explores the sensitivity of this result to the choice of climate model used to define the CO2-warmed environment and to the choice of convective parameterization”.

This was a computer model simulation of what might happen if we have guessed the correct values of parameters, if the models are accurate, and if the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere more than doubles and remains that high for the next 100 years. There is no reason to believe that such a rate of increase is possible, there are data that indicate that even if fossil fuels remain plentiful that such a rate of economic expansion is impossible. This study does not present an analysis of existing data and make a conclusion as normal scientific studies do.

Your other studies are similar.

I know that we use models to extrapolate our conclusions beyond what existing data tell us, but that is possible only if existing data provide some indication of what the trend will be. Models can extrapolate they cannot create new data.

The concluding paragraph of the new article that Mark linked says, “The consensus among hurricane researchers and forecasters is that the hurricane landfalls of 2004 resulted from the AMO, a natural cycle of hurricane activity, combined with a lapse in the incredibly good fortune of the previous 35 years. The effect of global warming was at most second-order, and probably not present at all.”

Let me decoct the above information.

Some who study hurricanes hypothesize that future warming (they assume that future warming will be carbon dioxide-induced a supposition not supported by facts in evidence) will increase the intensity of future hurricanes. Those hypotheses find support in computer models. No one can find a trend toward increased intensity in present day data. Present day storms appear no more intense than the storms of the early 1900s

According to IPCC, the climate temperature has increased by about 0.6 C degrees since 1860. That is about 1/5 of the total increase predicted between 1860 and 2100. Thus, 20% of the hypothesized temperature increase has produced no detectible increase in hurricane intensity.

Such large portion of the hypothesized temperature increase should have produced some detectible increase in hurricane intensity, if the increase were occurring.

and GW does not increase hurricane intensity (nor will it in the future), I hope you’re not suggesting that this “fact” disproves AGW, or disproves GW is causing (or will cause) greater heatwaves, droughts & floods, and that we should, therefore, not do anything to reduce our GHGs.

As for me, I’d be very happy to really believe that hurricanes will not increase in intensity due to GW; I already feel partially guilty & responsible for all the many other problems GW causes & will cause.

As mentioned, however, I do predict a future (once GW effects become more severe) of the public overattributing problems to AGW—which should keep the future contrarians & scientists busy with bonafide refutations. At that time, people will look back and severely blame our generation, perhaps looking for whatever scapegoats they can find. Maybe they’ll spit on our graves & curse us to Hell. Assuming we persist with our “do-nothing” policy. I think they might forgive us, if we at least try to reduce GHGs (& other env harms & national debt) for their sake.

Parsing, quibbling, and the like is a clue, son. That’s what the denialists and contrascientists have to do, because that’s all they have.

viz:

There is no reason to believe that such a rate of increase is possible, there are data that indicate that even if fossil fuels remain plentiful that such a rate of economic expansion is impossible. This study does not present an analysis of existing data and make a conclusion as normal scientific studies do.

Your premises are wrong, yet you hang your hat (and hopes) on them.

There is a reason an increase is possible. There are numerous studies that show how this is possible, and economic expansion only has a bit to do with it. Go to the library, or read the journal you claim to have a subscription to.

And, the study’s purpose was not to analyze existing data.

Step up your game, son.

ÐnØ

Good point, Lynn. I think we do have to be very careful not to over-attribute things to one “headline” cause.

I am just finishing an outstanding book by Jared Diamond “Collapse” which considers 5 key factors which impact how societies fare. It seems to me that this is a manageable number for classification, and I think the crucial point to realise that he doesn’t go into a case study looking for a single explanation.

GW is getting a lot of publicity in the UK, I can imagine that suddenly it could become seen as the single-factor cause for a lot of ills.

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/08/kavanagh-collapse/

“He identifies five factors that contribute to collapse: climate change, hostile neighbors, trade partners (that is, alternative sources of essential goods), environmental problems, and, finally, a society’s response to its environmental problems. The first four may or may not prove significant in each society’s demise, Diamond claims, but the fifth always does. The salient point, of course, is that a society’s response to environmental problems is completely within its control, which is not always true of the other factors. In other words, as his subtitle puts it, a society can “choose to fail.” “

PS. I remember getting involved, in the late 1990s. with Internet Research – and trying to get people to consider how it could be used to run surveys. Then, during 2000 there was some sort of tipping-point & everyone was going mad for it. I remember then saying to people that “hey, it’s not that great”. A couple of years after that, there was a swing against it, and now there is a swing for it again.

So .. my point is to support you, Lynn, that we need to keep a good sense of perspective with GW.

on a subject. The tip-off is that you lapse into supercilious condescension, which usually includes invocation of some vague group of references that purportedly prove that your opinion is correct.

Another key is that those posts never include any reasoned discussion of the subject at hand.

I see the discussion of hurricane increased intensity as an example of the rampant over attribution of problems to a future warmer climate. Mass extinctions, coastal flooding and the spread of malaria are a few other examples.

Try reading some of the papers you argue against if you want reasoned discussion, rather than parrotting predigested pap and maybe you’ll get some respect. Respect is earned, and all you’ve earned is the recognition that:

1. you don’t read 99% of the actual papers you don’t cite properly 2. The rare one you claim to read you don’t understand 3. and you cut/paste without attribution from indy-funded denialist sites.

That earns condescention, not respect, and is no basis for reasoned discussion despite your wishes for it to be so.

ÐnØ

No substance.

http://junkscience.com/july05/mastalerz072005.htm

“How The Humanity Is To Defend Itself Against Eco-Swindlers And Believers In Supernatural Phenomena Przemyslaw Mastalerz Wroclaw, Poland July 22, 2005

There are two categories of scientific swindlers. One category includes all sorts of doomsayers who insist that something very bad is going to happen if we disregard their warnings. To this category belong those who warn against the global warming, genetically modified food, cell phones and other electric appliances, pesticides, waste incineration, mineral fertilizers, atomic power plants and other alleged dangers. It is convenient to call them eco-swindlers because in their teaching they always refer to the environment. They are a rather new phenomenon, which appeared only about 50 years ago, together with the growing public awareness of environmental issues.

The second category includes astrologists, dowsers, homeopathic doctors and other kinds of healers. It is an ancient category. There were always astrologists and all kinds of shamans.”

The essay then discusses the following hoaxes.

The global warming (the dangers of)

Genetically modified foods (the dangers of)

Cell phones and other electric appliances (the dangers of)

Pesticides (the dangers of)

Municipal waste incineration

Mineral fertilizers (the dangers of)

Atomic power plants (the dangers of)

Homeopathy (the efficacy of)

Dowsing (the efficacy of)

Astrology (the efficacy of)

You’ve tried this tactic already. Do you have a new one?

D

Hope you are keeping well,

For the sake of argument, let us assume that you are right and the whole GW scenario is a construct and a fiendish plan by international pinko liberal subversive eco-terrorists.

Let us instead start from the point of maximising shareholder value. A couple of weeks ago at a sustainable development conference in Cardiff two of the many speakers were Bruno Sulmon, Vice-President for Geographic Development & European Area President, Dow Corning Corporation (from the point of an industry decision-maker) and Tom Delay, Chief Executive, The Carbon Trust (from the point of view of someone who has to sell the concept of dealing with GW to major corporates across the UK) Both were talking about the benefits of sustainable development, in particular the elimination of wastes and emissions and improvements in resource and energy efficiency.

Both stressed that the impact of meeting the Kyoto protocol targets on forward thinking companies would be an improvement in bottom line performance, better market positioning and better risk management all of which were already providing better shareholder value as evidenced by stock values. The implications of meeting the current Kyoto targets were stated as a potential net contribution to corporate bottom lines of +£15bn by 2010 in the UK: that’s profit , not cost. The senior management representatives from Loreal, KPMG, Corus, Tetrapak and the CBI all concurred with this view.

Where is this extra profit coming from? acquisitions and mergers? screwing suppliers into the ground? moving production to China or better still employing slave labour? Or indeed is this purely artificial inflationary profiteering by positioning your company to exploit government subsidies or playing the carbon-credits trading casino?

Nope, it is from adopting the very kind of fluffy utopian thinking described by the Lovins’s in ‘Natural Capitalism’. Because it is good business and it cuts GHG emissions as well.

So Norb, you can either get RSI by conducting bombastic and sturine arguments over the implications of scientific papers on irreconcilable positions, or chill and tell us about the stuff you find positive, interesting and progressive: like that Antarctic survey site link you sent me.

best for now

Colin

You make a very good point in your assessment.

Dan

or at least the extinction rate is accelerating exponentially. So some extinctions could be attributed to the regular process of extinction, and some to many other causes, but some are definitely (scientifically) linked to GW.

As a social scientist & a person familiar with ecology, my concern is that relatively small changes (e.g., an extinction here, a drought there, slight warming or acidification of the ocean from CO2, etc.) can have big repercussions & reverberations, ending in large changes. There are thousands of variables. No scientist or group of scientists can possibly deal with all of them & give a totally acurate prediction. That is why we need to follow the precautionary principle & reduce our GHGs in sensible ways that do not inflict harm on us now.

I am sure you would agree we should be vigorously pursuing energy/resource efficiency/conservation in ways that would at least improve our lives, even if you disbelieve there are any environmental problems at all.

Can you give any hint as to how you arrive at your last conclusion? We expect global warming to lead to an increase in hurricane intensity, but changes which we would expect to have occurred in response to the modest warming of the past hundred years cannot be separated from natural variability.

I’ve only ever suggested following cost-effective measures to combat GW, ones that will save you money now or in the long run (or not cost), and also abate many other problems to boot (saving us even more). And my motivation has not been fear, but love for others.

As for pesticides, I know that they tend to cause cancer (esp. prostate & breast cancer), and that is due to their hormone-like qualities. This has been proven. And I know that an anti-cancer diet can help cure these cancers caused by pesticides. Because the diet is also good for many other diseases, I don’t hesitate to share it with others, while telling them to follow their doctor’s advice. Again, I am not trying to swindle anyone, but help them!

If you think about it a while, all this talk of Kyoto & abating GW costing us really doesn’t make any sense. How can turning off lights not in use cost us more money. Just doesn’t compute, Capt. Kirk.

Proven Oil Reserves stand at 1.19 trillion barrels according to BP in the Statistical Review of World Energy. Saudi Arabia has the most share with 22% of the world’s reserves. Next in line is Iraq with around 11% and then Iraq qith 10%. Combining the top 4 oil stake holders; Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, they hold 51% of the world’s proven reserves.

The interesting thing about the news clip was how long these reserves will last at 2004 production rates. Saudi’s Oil will be exhausted in 68 years assuming the same production rates and no new oil found! the next big three will exhaust their supplies between 89 and 100+ years!

Thought this news would cheer the GW’ers up! The oil won’t last forever…

source: The Economist: Jun 25-Jul 1, 2005

One caveat that surprised me was the US has only 11 years worth of proven oil reserves at 2004 production rates. How would we (USA) ever become energy independent at those rates? Unless we (US) pursue alternative sources (something which is funded to the tune of $4 billion in the new energy bill about to be passed by congress)

Dan,

these folks only have 2-3 types of argumentation, and Norb uses nothing new in his. As long as you keep the original point in mind and ignore the hand-waving, one can usually see when the argument breaks down/is unsupported.

There are very few denialists/contrascience flunkies out there that can argue and synthesize well, which is a big clue.

Best,

D

that oil was running out. That’s why I started conserving a bit back then – like moving closer to work, etc. Though I didn’t know exactly when we would run out. Then with GW coming on the scene in the late 80s – early 90s, that really gave me impetus to reduce GHGs.

What we should do, considering both GW & entropy (depleting of resources), is reduce consumption post haste.

Thanks for the figures Jimbo, and I hope you are keeping well by the way.

If there realy is 68 years-worth left, then think what we could do if we could increase efficiency by a factor of 4: not rocket science, the technology is there already. If a conventional car can return 35 mpg, then a plug-in Hybrid can return 70. If biofuels (like ethanol) can be introduced in a 50/50 mix, then you get 140 miles per fossil fuel gallon: 1/4 of the net CO2 increase.

That would extend the oil reserves to 272 years. Time enough to have real stab at finding much more efficient methods of converting direct and indirect solar energy and moving in a more orderly way to an economy that values skills and knowledge and human input at a higher rate than materials consumption, and where far more of what is manufactured is designed in a whole life cycle for re-use, repair and recycling.

But, and there always is a but, The cost of getting the remaining oil out of the ground is going to increase steeply because it will move from positive to negative pressure and will need more energy to displace it. There will come a point before the reserves are exhausted, when it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the value of the energy in the oil itself. At what point that will occur I don’t know, but it could be well before the end of the reserves.

And then, can we be certain that countries such as those you mention have not inflated the size of their reserves to allow them to sell more in the short term? Shell got caught out doing that last year and it took a huge chunk out of their stock market value.

Better to play safe and guess at say 35-40 years. Now every time we half consumption (even if that has to be by doubling the price) we buy another generation time to adapt to life without oil and in a more hostile world.

kind regards

Colin

right now I guess. In our area we have 10% ethanol and 90% gas mixture which is about 10 cents cheaper per gallon. My car seems happy on it so I use it…

Our next car is going to be a Toyota Hybrid. The Highlander looks very promising and gets very good mileage in the city… around 33mpg… not too bad for a medium sized SUV. I digress.

Oil has definitely brought the world this far in lots of ways…. too bad it won’t last and is causing pollution concerns.

At the moment, ethanol is being made from sugar beet and corn waste, from surplusses. Bioethanol is about 102 octane, so your car will love it: it also burns cleaner, with less soot and Sulphur compounds so there is less lubricant contamination. You should be able to increase the mixture a good deal more without any loss of performance, but if running above 35%, you should get the ignition re-tuned. Ford are bringing out an ethonal-mix version of the Focus here next year. In Denmark, about 60% of the filling stations serve an 85% ethanol mix and loads of cars run on it, but as yet, there is not much available in the UK.

If your are going to get a hybrid, try to find one which has the plug-in option. If most of your driving is in urban areas, the big advantage of a hybrid is that when the car is stationary, no energy is used. Having the plug-in version means that you can recharge the batteries from off-peak electricity overnight. If you buy fom a green power supplier like Lynn, then you are really reducing emissions as well as your fuel costs. Off-peak electricty should cost you 3c a mile.

We look forward to getting more hybrid options available over here rather than just the basic Prius.

kind regards

Colin

Hey, Dano, the next time you post here, can you leave out the agitprop phraseology, condescension, dogmatic points, and irrelevant allegations?

It would make it easier to find your point.

Check it out: I took out all the words that were part of “my list” above from your post. This is what I got:

NOTHING countering anything he posted. (Strategy if you don’t like the message attack the messenger)

See? contentless. Not helpful to express your counter-argument. And your listed thing? Sad.

I haven’t come across any of your publications or OpEd pieces countering ANY of the journals and abstracts cited by Norb or myself. So what exactly makes you the final authority and blog demagogue on what others bring up as counter points to some of the GW theories?

HTH,

Jimbo

I haven’t come across any of your publications or OpEd pieces countering ANY of the journals and abstracts cited by Norb or myself. So what exactly makes you the final authority and blog demagogue on what others bring up as counter points to some of the GW theories?

This thread appeared in a Barton post. There were no journal articles/abstracts posted.

Norb’s latest citation was a misunderstood/unread article purportedly to support his incorrect statement.

If you have something specific in mind, mentioning that specific would help, as I don’t recall you citing abstracts, and a perusal of your latest posts shows no citations of abstracts or journals related to AGW.

And, as I discuss on the Norb threads, he doesn’t understand the point of what he cut/pastes and you can refer to them for specifics.

If you wish to paint me as an authority, that is your choice. I merely respond to (what I perceive to be) the misguided argumentation I see here.

Best,

ÐnØ