Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Post Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests


    You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the truth and it's going to get worst.

    click the link to read more>>>>>>

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Hurricane...C-RSSFeeds0312


  2. it all goes in cycles. this link will provide you with information show how odd the earth can be IE a storm that reach NJ with over 200mph winds etc... i do not and am not trying to argue the aspect of global warming.. it happens.. if humans are doing it or not, it will happen anyway.. we have to keep in mind that hurricanes are hitting our pockets more because we idiot humans are building more on shore lines prone to these storms


    anyway.. here is the link http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html
    •   
       


  3. Well, a growing number of scientist say different and I rather go with their thoughts on this subject. I remember watching the nature channel, regarding Global warming about a couple years back and I have to say...that show convince me. The weather is changing all over the planet.




    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    it all goes in cycles. this link will provide you with information show how odd the earth can be IE a storm that reach NJ with over 200mph winds etc... i do not and am not trying to argue the aspect of global warming.. it happens.. if humans are doing it or not, it will happen anyway.. we have to keep in mind that hurricanes are hitting our pockets more because we idiot humans are building more on shore lines prone to these storms


    anyway.. here is the link http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html

  4. i agree, it is going on.. look at nasa photos of our ice caps as well as pics of our ocean water's temps... but i still have YET to grasp that this wouldn't be happening if humans were not causing it ...

  5. humans nothing im with the rabbi
    •   
       


  6. Ahhh the monster of Global Warming that feeds on everyones fears.



    August 20, 2005

    There She Blows

    by Patrick J. Michaels

    Patrick J. Michaels is Cato Institute senior fellow for environmental studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

    Given the recent claims that hurricanes are getting dramatically worse because of global warming, it's too bad we’ve already exhausted the letter "G" for this hurricane season. "Gasbag" would have been a pretty good moniker for the next storm.

    In case you’ve missed the hype, MIT's Kerry Emanuel has a paper in the online version of Nature magazine saying that hurricanes are becoming dramatically more powerful as a result of global warming.

    Merely venturing into the discussion of hurricanes and global warming is more dangerous than most tropical cyclones. About Emanuel's article, William Gray of Colorado State University -- the guy who issues the annual hurricane forecast that grabs headlines every summer -- told the Boston Globe, "It's a terrible paper, one of the worst I've ever looked at."

    There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."

    Six months earlier, Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Research Laboratory, another federal entity, quit the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Landsea is probably the world's most respected hurricane scientist. He was furious that Rajenda Pauchari, director of the panel, condoned Trenberth's statements that hurricanes were worsening because of global warming.

    What is going on here? Nothing unusual. Behavior like this takes place every day at faculty meetings across academia. But global warming and hurricanes are hot topics right now, so the bickering spills over into the press.

    What is unusual is the especially shoddy nature of the current scientific review process on global warming papers.

    Consider the recent Nature article. If hurricanes had doubled in power in the last few decades as Emanuel claims, the change would be obvious; you wouldn't need a weatherman to know which way this wind was blowing. All of these feuding scientists would have agreed on the facts long ago.

    Damages caused by doubling the strength of hurricanes would be massive and increasing dramatically. Figures on this are pretty easy to come by, at least in the United States. The insured value of property from Brownsville, Texas to Eastport, Maine -- our hurricane prone Atlantic Coast -- is greater than a year of our Gross Domestic Product. If hurricanes had actually doubled in power, the losses in the insurance industry would be catastrophic.

    Pielke has studied this, and his work is well known. Hurricanes are causing greater dollar damages because more and more people are building increasingly expensive beachfront monstrosities that have financially appreciated during the recent real-estate bubble. Account for these and there is no significant change in hurricane expenses along our coast. Illinois climatologist Stanley Changnon has also studied this for non-hurricane weather damage over the entire country with similar results.

    Pielke told me that, "analysis of hurricane damage over the past century shows no trend in hurricane destructiveness, once the data are adjusted to account for the dramatic growth along the nation's coasts."

    You would think that reviewers of Emanuel’s paper at Nature would have thought to ask whether, in fact, there was evidence for increasingly powerful storms.

    But they didn't. There is just no incentive in the scientific community to kill the remarkably fertile global warming goose, a beast that feeds on public fears.

    The federal outlay on climate research is now $4.2 billion per year, roughly the same amount given to the National Cancer Institute. The climate research community sees a grave threat when research shows there's no threat from the climate. So papers that hawk climate disaster get superficial reviews and uncritical headlines, while those that argue otherwise are "shameful."

    This article appeared on Reason.com on August 17, 2005.

  7. BS...hurricanes have been going on for millions of years. Ice caps melting is nothing new. Remeber the Ice Age? no cars around then.

    The lefties are just trying to capitalize on tragedy (as they always do) to further their agenda.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by The Doberman
    BS...hurricanes have been going on for millions of years. Ice caps melting is nothing new. Remeber the Ice Age? no cars around then.

    The lefties are just trying to capitalize on tragedy (as they always do) to further their agenda.
    Agreed, Category 5s have been going since the begining of time... they didnt just start recently.

    Adams

  9. Quote Originally Posted by QUICKRYDE
    Well, a growing number of scientist say different and I rather go with their thoughts on this subject. I remember watching the nature channel, regarding Global warming about a couple years back and I have to say...that show convince me. The weather is changing all over the planet.
    Well, yes...some scientists believe that global warming is effecting weather right now, but many do not. I get to hear both sides of the story all the time...

    I personally believe our rate of CO2 production is a problem; CO2 is the chemical largely responsible for the debate over global warming. Now, the problem is, is the inrease in CO2 enough to make a difference?

    Even though the percentage of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has risen dramatically, that does not mean it is ENOUGH to cause global warming. The percentage of CO2 (as a part of our atmosphere) is VEEEEEEEEEERY SMALL.

    This is where the debate lies.

    Yes, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere WILL trap in heat from the sun, which will lead to this global warming phenomenon WHEN it gets to a critical point. BUT, has it happened yet? Is there enough excess CO2 in our atmosphere to produce this phenomenon? These are the questions that we cannot yet answer.

    I fully believe we are at least on our way to a average earth temperature hot enough to start causing major problems. However, i also KNOW that our Earths weather has cyclical patterns.

    Right now, i'm not convinced that these hurricanes are a result of global warming as opposed to normal cyclical patterns.

    I.E. We have 1.5 months left in the gulf-coasts storm season, and we are 3 MAJOR storms from breaking a 76 year old major storm record of 22 storms. So, techically, these storms are not abnormal. And, we had a season as bad or worse almost 100 years ago, when the increase in CO2 was negligible and global warming was 100% a non-issue.

    Right now global warming cannot be proven to be the cause for this phenomenon, especially considering we have similar events on record within a century--keep in mind, a century is a very short amount of time on our planet.

    I'm not saying its not the cause, just that you cannot jump to conclusions because nothing as of late is completely abnormal. And, the global warming issue is still a problem regardless, because if we don't stop burning fossil fuels (how we get most of our excess CO2) we're going to eventually have a problem--that's a given.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    Agreed, Category 5s have been going since the begining of time... they didnt just start recently.

    Adams
    There really haven't been that many cat 5's in the last 100 years only 3 have ever made landfall, I think but where this is a normal warming cycle or some alittle bit more unnatural.. something is causing the Gulf to be warmer than it usually is

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    There really haven't been that many cat 5's in the last 100 years only 3 have ever made landfall, I think but where this is a normal warming cycle or some alittle bit more unnatural.. something is causing the Gulf to be warmer than it usually is
    Then why dont we attribute any weather phenomenon to the 10 minute earth quake that not only caused the Tsunami last december, not only cause seismic activity through the earth, but also caused a few centimeter change in the earths orbit?

    Adams

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_In...ean_earthquake

  12. http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm

    thought this was rather interesting. perhaps BS or propoganda, perhaps not.....

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebub
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm

    thought this was rather interesting. perhaps BS or propoganda, perhaps not.....
    Wow... that conspiricy theory takes the cake.

    Adams

  14. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    Wow... that conspiricy theory takes the cake.

    Adams
    Bush did it to get Jesse Jackson in a uproar

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    There really haven't been that many cat 5's in the last 100 years only 3 have ever made landfall, I think but where this is a normal warming cycle or some alittle bit more unnatural.. something is causing the Gulf to be warmer than it usually is
    The facts to back up what Matt is saying about the 3 cat 5's.

    http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2252346

    What was Rita when she made landfall? Tropical storm or Hurricane?

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebub
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm

    thought this was rather interesting. perhaps BS or propoganda, perhaps not.....
    Bush did it! There aren`t enoguh no-bid contracts left in Iraq sooooo... add some here to hand to your buddies!

    Don`t blame me for this I am just repeating it!

  17. Quote Originally Posted by JonesersRX7
    The facts to back up what Matt is saying about the 3 cat 5's.

    http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2252346

    What was Rita when she made landfall? Tropical storm or Hurricane?
    I believe Rita was a Category 3 hurricane when she made landfall.

    Katrina was a category 4 when she hit.

  18. You are correct K..

  19. Contracts that need bids take too long to be done.. these no bid contracts are given to a company / or many that can get the job done... and also if you think its all just bush feeding his own.. the second company that got a no bid deal for this recovery is in league with the democrate gov of L.A.

    sometimes red tape is good, other times, it should be avoided IE in situations of disaster and war

  20. Anyone who believes that we are the cause global warming needs to explain the global warming on mars. Anyone who believes that a consensus of scientists constitutes proof needs to explain why pellagra and, especially, eugenics are exempt from this logic. Anyone who believes that "greenhouse gasses" should still be controlled, for whatever reason, needs to figure out what we should do about volcanoes. Anyone who can't figure out what to do about volcanoes, but still thinks we should regulate ourselves because we can, needs to make a concrete value proposition. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

  21. Well...there are a few differences.

    The CFC's that were killing our atmosphere are different. I believe chlorine is the destructor of ozone, and volcanoes release MUCH more chlorine with every reaction....BUT that chlorine doesn't make it into the ozone, as it does with the CFC's.

    So, that is a very different scenario.

    Global warming can be caused naturally or induced by humans. Just because it can occur naturally (due to some phenomenon), doesn't mean that a human induced phenomenon cannot occur.

    In this instance, the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere eventually WILL cause global warming, but that doesn't mean its happened already.i personally don't believe it IS in the works, so to speak, but rather, is on the way.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Well...there are a few differences.

    The CFC's that were killing our atmosphere are different. I believe chlorine is the destructor of ozone, and volcanoes release MUCH more chlorine with every reaction....BUT that chlorine doesn't make it into the ozone, as it does with the CFC's.

    So, that is a very different scenario.
    Nyet. From the article I linked:

    The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. The aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze over the following months. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased substantially.

    And my other points still stand.

  23. That was "one" instance...



    School is in session

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Ken Rubin
    ...
    Volcanic eruptions account for a large flux of chlorine from land to the atmosphere on a yearly basis. This is in addition to chlorine that enters the atmosphere from sea spray, industrial processes and biological gases. All of these inputs occur near or at the base of the atmosphere (the planet's surface). Very little of the material emited from volcanoes makes it up into the higher reaches of our atmosphere (the stratosphere) where it could affect the ozone layer, however. Most of it is believed to be depositied lower down (in the troposphere), where it then rained out back to the surface of the earth. Only during fairly rare, large, explosive eruptions, such as occured a few years back at Mt. Pinatubo, do large amounts of volcanic gases reach the stratosphere.
    So why do chlorofluorocarbons reach the upper atmosphere when they too are only input at the base of the atmosphere? Because the latter are much more stable in the lower atmosphere, so they become well distributed and make their way to the stratosphere via atmospheric circulation. On the other hand, chlorine from volcanoes is usually emitted as hydrochloric acid (HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2) or volatile compounds such as lead chloride (PbCl2). Each of these is far more water soluble and/or reactive in the lower atmosphere (as compared to chlorofluorocarbons) so these volcanic gases tend not to be as uniformly distributed in the atmosphere following injection by a volcano.
    So, does volcanic chlorine affect the ozone layer or not? Well, possibly it does, since even if only a small amount of the total chlorine input to the atmosphere from this source makes it to the stratosphere, it could still be a significant portion of the total amount of reactive chlorine-bearing compounds there. However, the rate of volcanic activity over a 100 to 1000 year interval has not, as far as we can tell, changed drastically for much of the past million years; the level of ozone in the upper atmosphere has also not changed drastically over this period (until recently). Thus, it may be true that chlorine from volcanoes helps keep the production of ozone from oxygen gas in check by limiting it's build up, but it is not likely that our present ozone woes are due to this source of chlorine.
    ....
    Full Text HERE



  24. Reaping the Hurricane

    by Patrick J. Michaels

    Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (2004).



    Dr. Christopher Landsea, a scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce and one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, has publicly resigned from authorship of an upcoming United Nations report on climate change. Landsea charged that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is "both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

    He has a point. The IPCC is more of a political body than a scientific authority. Its members are selected by their respective governments and approved by the UN Secretariat. This is not an unbiased, blind process.

    Remember those press conferences last fall where esteemed scientists blamed the severity of the 2004 hurricane season on global warming? One of them was another federal employee, Kevin Trenberth. According to Landsea, Trenberth hasn't "performed any research on hurricane variability." Nonetheless, he is the U.N.'s designated "Lead Author" for the chapter of the report that discusses hurricanes and global warming, and as a result would supervise Landsea's contributions.

    According to Landsea, "Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity."

    Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence that hurricane frequency or severity has increased because of global warming. In fact, the only detectable change in Atlantic hurricanes is a decline in average maximum wind speed, as shown in Landsea's own published scientific writing.

    Trenberth also advocates the position that global warming will make "El Nino" stronger, with very little scientific evidence. El Ninos are periodic reversals of Pacific trade winds that change storm tracks thousands of miles away. They also destroy Atlantic hurricanes. If global warming actually did make El Ninos more frequent or stronger, hurricane intensity should decrease.

    Landsea appealed to the head of the UN's climate panel, Rajenda Pachauri, to uphold genuine scientific inquiry.

    He should have known better. Pachauri penned the foreword to the 2004 report, "Up in Smoke," distributed by environmental activists including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Referring to hurricanes, it said "in a world in which global warming is already happening, such severe weather events are likely to be more frequent, and extreme."

    Pachauri dismissed Landsea's complaint out of hand, which led to the scientist's principled resignation.

    If elements of this story trigger a sense of déjê vu, then readers have been paying attention. There was a minor stir last fall when two government scientists predicted a slight (6 percent) increase in hurricane strength over the next century, due to global warming.

    They arrived at this prediction by using a computer model that assumed carbon dioxide will leach into the atmosphere at a rate that is twice what has been observed in recent decades. The model fails miserably when it attempts to forecast hurricanes in the real world, because it assumes no changes in hurricane environments as the planet warms. Critical scientists knew about the model's shortcomings, but they held their peace.

    This is becoming a pattern. Scientists, or people claiming the mantle of science, advance terribly flawed claims that the sky is falling; climate scientists who understand that this is false say next to nothing.

    Why?

    There are several reasons. Just as medical doctors care about human suffering, environmental scientists are often philosophically concerned about what they judge to be environmental degradation. Neither concern is "scientific" in the sense that it is concerned with testing theories against available evidence, but they do influence the way scientists behave.

    Then there's the money. Climatology used to be very un-cool, and largely un-funded. It was an impoverished backwater until global warming came along. Now it's a tremendous sink hole for tax dollars.

    The next federal budget is likely to propose around $4 billion for research on climate change. That money will only be allocated if global warming is presented as a severe threat to our health and well-being on the level of AIDS or cancer. So we end up with under-funded voices of sanity and a lot of well-funded Chicken Little-types.

    So far, this level of distortion has carried no cost to the prestige of the dissemblers. The United Nations now passes itself off as the world's authority on the effects of climate change and tropical cyclones while keeping a propagandist on the payroll. Perhaps President Bush, who ultimately must approve U.S. members for the panel, should approve none, effectively withdrawing his government from this pseudoscientific charade.

  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Is global warming true?
    By mrcoolboy15 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 10:10 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 05:49 PM
  3. Global Warming
    By CHAPS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
  4. Debate on the existance of Global Warming
    By kwyckemynd00 in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 06:49 PM
  5. Global Warming Countdown Catastrophe
    By darius in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-25-2005, 02:28 AM
Log in
Log in