Boy, are we having some funky weather here in England. At the moment it’s quite chilly here, while in other parts of the country there are flooding problems. Meanwhile, in the European continent people have died from the heat this summer. Crazy stuff.
Global warming doubles number of hurricanes, study finds – antara.co.id: Global warming’s effect on wind patterns and sea temperatures have nearly doubled the number of hurricanes a year in the Atlantic Ocean over the past century, says a new study by US scientists.
The scientists see a strong correlation between the spike in storm activity and rising sea surface temperatures, which “feed” hurricanes.
Over the last 100 years, these temperatures have risen by about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.7 degrees Celsius, the study asserts.
The temperatures rose approximately 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.4 degrees Celsius, in a period leading up to 1930, which was marked by some of the deadliest storms to hit the Atlantic Coast of the United States.
When was the Electoral College abolished, MS? Did I miss something?
#31 – Frank IBC,
When The Supremes decided to stop counting and appoint the president.
Scott, The oil companies are all for the global warming craze, contrary to what you say. They are enjoying unprecedented profits… laughing all the way to the bank.
#29 – “Al Gore couldn’t even keep the presidency when he was duly elected”
Another falsehood. Algore tried to steal the presidency through repeated, illegal recounts until rule of law prevailed.
Climate Science is a rigorous, legitimate science. Global Warming (TM) is a religion that has very little to do with Climate Science and a lot to do with the belief that mankind is evil must be guilty of something. The remainder is driven by politics.
MS –
Even the New York Times showed that Bush had more votes than Gore in Florida. Get over it, already.
#35 – Frank IBC,
It’s hard to get over the truth. Sorry.
Even the New York Times …
If you mean that you think the New York Times is a liberal paper, interesting. I still think of it as leaning just slightly to the right. It is the same symbol of “the establishment” that it was in the 60s and 70s. The only change has been to lower the reading grade level from 11th grade to 9th grade to accommodate our increasingly poorly educated populace. The real change is in how far this country has shifted to the right. The center is now so far left of the current neocon zeitgeist that it can barely be seen off in the distant left. However, it is still the center.
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
I think global warming caused the death of Daniel Pearl too.
So the planet may be warming, we don’t know, and even if we do, how do we know its not a natural cycle the planet goes through, even without man’s help? Global cooling and ice ages are well documented, so why wouldn’t natural cycles of warming be just as natural?
This doomsday crap the media continues to perpetuate is just ridiculous.
MS –
For someone who claims to be totally free from religion, you sure seem to hold a lot of dogmatic, unquestioned beliefs.
39—On what evidence do you claim the earth might not be warming?
What percent of your opinion is based on such factoid?
40—Belief in religion==aka Dogma without facts. Not subject to change.
Belief in science==aka Dogma based on facts. Dogma to change as the facts change.
See the difference? Its subtle because “belief” and “dogma” appear in each discription. But I believe it is there.
#42 – bobbo,
It’s not dogma if it’s based on facts. Even if the facts are not known 100%, people believing based on facts are willing to change opinions when new evidence is given. People believing based on faith lobby to stop schools from teaching truth when it conflicts with their faith. These things are different.
I hope to be proven wrong about climate change. I just haven’t seen any significant evidence to think that will happen, so am pessimistic.
(My karma ran over my dogma. Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
#39 – Axtell,
Even the skeptics agree at this point that the planet is warming. It has already warmed by 0.75 degrees celcius.
As for cycles, certainly the planet warms and cools. Unfortunately, it is currently warming at a far greater rate than has ever been documented. Further, addition of carbon dioxide is known to warm planets, as it did with Venus, a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect.
Further, the planet has definitely been warmer than today. 55 million years ago the poles were tropical in temperature. But, humans weren’t alive then. We don’t know how much warming we can survive and in what numbers.
I would strongly suggest that you read some real science on the subject so that you can at least understand what knowledge is out there. Some things are known quantitatively. Some are known only qualitatively. Some are speculative. In the last category are all local weather forecasts based on N years of warming. Scientists try to forecast local effects. However, the global effects are much simpler. Which specific areas will have drought, which will have floods, that gets hard to predict.
Bobbo, Scott, some of the research I’ve referred to is currently embargoed. Yeah, I know, what a copout. The influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate during the past three decades wrt global warming may be as low as 20%, as high as 50%. I never said global warming was not humanity’s fault.
You can find papers on both sides of the argument — solar effects on the ionosphere, stratosphere, troposphere, the oceans, land masses are all being heatedly debated. I’m sorry I can’t provide more definitive information, but like I said, it seems the stuff in the news and the arguments are driven more by money, politics, etc.
Currently under study are new data from the STEREO probes, the Hinode (SOLAR-B) probe, Kitt Peak, Sac Peak, and others (qv.)
I’m just a miniscule cog (a really miniscule cog) in a very large set of gears. Current research involves sunspot activity and, of all things, how sonic activity data reveals new information about the Sun’s interior.
Even this article’s conclusion on the last Maunder Minimum is argumentative (interesting even though it’s 18 months old):
http://tinyurl.com/25b8rh
Maybe I should start a website: Solar Physicist / Astronomer For Sale, can support any argument you wish to make.
44—Bubba, YOU just TRY to speak out of both sides of your mouth, and you’ll get sued for practicing law without a license ((unless you have one==smile!==)).
Must be frustrating to have your level of expertise and put up with threads like this one?
I feel the same way when the subject of “best beer” comes up. Doh!!!!!!!
Keep all your good stuff coming.
#44 – BubbaRay,
I’m trying to follow all of this, but am admittedly not a climate scientist. Nor am I an astronomer or solar physicist. Would you give me a clue how this local data between 1680 and 1780 climate for England relates to the climate for the rest of the planet? Further, what is it’s relative value in forecasting future climate for the planet?
I really am trying. I have learned a lot from your prior posts and am trying to figure out the relevance of this one.
#45, Bobbo, YOU just TRY to speak out of both sides of your mouth, and you’ll get sued for practicing law without a license
Al Gore tried it with his global warming garbage (as well as many other elected officials), and look what it got them!! I get some telescope time, they get the benefits of royalty.
And NO, I would never “sell out.” Science is real, politics is for some people who can lie to the populace over and over with a straight face.
Cheese, man, give me some credit for integrity. The comment was meant as irony.
47—Ironic (sarcasm?) is just the way I took it. Humor is just difficult to transmit over short blog responses.
Assuming to respond to Scott while I post this, I take it the Maunder Minimum was a period of Solar Flares that we may be just entering again, so indeed the Earth may cool in the next 30 years?? Or is the possible cooling effect already overcome by the increasing greenhouse gasses?
Now–control for the other 28 known relevent variables, and get back to me on both sides of the issue!
#46, Scott, the last Maunder Minimum probably resulted in “The Little Ice Age.” Current solar research shows the possibility of another Maunder Minimum in as little as 30 years from now. I wish I could show you the data and theory, but folks here would fall asleep. Here’s a very short summary:
http://protostar.aas.org/publications/baas/v35n3/spd2003/18.htm
I think we need to reduce carbon emissions because we waste a ton of energy and I like that gas prices are higher.
I’m not sold on either global warming or that if it is true that humans are causing it, but either way we are wasting a ton of natural resources by not using them efficiently so I really am not so concerned if global warming is true or not.
#48, Bobbo, the last Maunder Minimum was a well recorded period of solar inacttivity, no sunspots, no flares, etc. And if we’re headed for another, as research indicates, maybe
hellEarth won’t freeze over again since we seem to heating up as a result of both Solar and manmade activity. As I said, interpretation of the current data has been manipulated for monetary and political gain.I still can’t believe Al Gore won an award for that bloated gob of garbage called a movie. What a disservice to scientists, but people seem to eat that junk for lunch.
And since I can’t even spell “inactivity”, I’m done. Global warming may be a myth, a result of man, solar variability, whatever. I’m tired of arguing against money, politicians, uninformed morani, informed scientists, whatever. See ya’ll later, research is just a “google” away, good luck.
I agree with iGW…..less to type that way….BubbaRay keep fighting the good fight.
BubbaRay,
A bit more research turned up about a 0.2 degree celcius cooling for the Maunder Minimum. Everything I’ve read to date shows that we have already warmed by 0.75 degrees celcius. It would have been nice to believe that this would give us our reprieve, but, I think that at best it may offset a very small percentage of the anticipated warming. Remember, the warming already measured is the result of carbon (and methane) released 10 years ago. The lag means that even if we were to stop burning fossil fuels today and stop ranching cattle, we would still be committed to another 10 years of warming. Too bad. I was almost hopeful there for a few hours.
BTW, please also remember that while climate science takes many disciplines into account, astronomy does not take into account the carbon cycle, the clouds, the hydrological cycle, the chemistry behind the various forms of carbon sequestration, the effects on life in the oceans, the effects of cutting rain forest on the hydrological cycle, the fact that old growth forests sequester 99% of their carbon in the soil, rather than the trees, and all the rest of the complext factors that go with climatology.
BubbaRay,
One more thought. Climate science calculates that based on solar radiation hitting our planet versus heat radiated away if there were no greenhouse gases the global mean surface temperature would be -3 degrees celcius. That’s an average temperature below freezing.
Only when adding into the calculations the effects of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane do we get to our current global mean temperature of 27 degrees celcius.
This means that even prior to humans, greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming of 30 degrees celcius or 54 degrees fahrenheit.
We humans have increased both methane and carbon dioxide dramatically. How exactly is it that people see any possibility that the huge human increase in two out of three of the principal greenhouse gases on the planet would not have a measurable effect?
#36 – The “center” has moved so far left that old time “liberals” like Kennedy and Humphrey were, on many issues, more “conservative” than today’s Republicans.
I would say the huge shift to the left may have actually unbalanced and tilted the Earth and affected the climate. So, upon further analysis, maybe man is responsible. 😉
#56 – iGlobalWarmer,
Old time liberals and conservatives were both more conservatives than today’s republicans. Even I, a true tax and spend liberal, am far more conservative than today’s borrow and spend radical right wing republicans. Conservatives do not want change. Republicans want to change everything. They want a theocratic nation in debt up to its teeth. Liberals like me, at least recognize that the bills must be paid. Many of us are even willing to put our money where our mouths are. This recognition that the bills must be paid is far more fiscally conservative than the republicans that have given us a higher debt to GDP ratio than the prior record set in 1929.
BTW, I’m pretty proud of the fact that on an old internet test of political leanings I came up so solidly in the liberal and progressive quadrant that I was both more liberal and more progressive than either Ghandi or Mandela. I wish I could find that test again. And, I’m still more fiscally conservative than either Bush. Remember, it was Pappa Bush that doubled the national debt (2 -> 4 trillion) in just 4 years!
Wouldn’t it be nice to have an election with a true conservative and a true liberal running against each other? These might be two individuals I could actually respect. Of course, they’d be politicians, so probably not.
I’m just wondering how they documented all the hurricanes in the early 1900’s? We count them now by sattelite, even the once that never make it to land. How the hell did they do that in 1907? Not by boat, as they’d be unable to tell the tale…
If you’re going to compare data, make sure you’re data is correct and complete!
If you’re waiting for Scott to respond about how far back accurate hurricane data goes, you’re going to be here until the 12th of Never.
The dolphins and whales have records going back centuries.