Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
“The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity,” Trenberth says. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise. Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength.
Presented as another reference source for folks interested in scientific and scholarly analysis of the real world. Without opinion.
The rest of you know who you are [tee-hee].
Its interesting that anyone is just now getting around to contradicting the “this is actually normal” that passed as conventional wisdom at the time (although this is not the first time I’ve heard anyone say it wasn’t normal).
At the time, I still thought it was a no-brainer; the ocean temperature rises, making the atlantic an even better incubator for bigly huge winds.
If nothing else, conventional wisdom probably shouldn’t feel too bad about it; I know for a fact Bill Nye got the wrong answer, too.
footnote: Geophysical Research Letters is a peer-reviewed publication with thousands of members world-wide.
What’s this? Peer reviewed science backing up the concept of human-induced global warming?
But I’ve been told by so many people that there is a raging debate about this issue! That there are competent, unbiased minds on both side of the debate!
What on earth is going on here?
Oh .. right. We’re cooking the joint.
The American Geophysical Union just can’t be trusted on the issue of global warming. They previously issued a report trying to destroy a skeptic on the issue of hurricanes vs. global warming(Bill Gray at the NOAA), saying that they have no ability to predict hurricane levels on a yearly basis. They didn’t link to the full report, but I suspect one of its sources would be that paper.
[edit: the link to Pielke, et al, doesn’t fit the frame. AB CD pls use http://www.tinyurl.com.]
So many of these scientists have turned into activists that they’ll do anything to push people towards their preferred solutions.
Global warming is one of those discussions that makes me “cranky”.
Question: Is there reasonable evidence to support the theory of global warming?
Popular media decrying “the sky is falling” and scientists looking for funding and claiming “the sky could be falling but, we need more $$$ for research” (sorry about the sentence) is frustrating.
I believe more research is necessary. Reasonable and coherent research. Not some wild speculation, assertions and the magic eight ball or a computer model which on a server that also doubles as a Battlefield 2 server.
From what I understand, there has been an increase in cyclone activity in the North Atlantic, but a decrease in the South Pacific.
Bush: Climate change is ‘serious problem’
See? We just need an expansion of the nuclear program.
We could smoke global warming out with a coupla bunker busters!
Pielke Jr. R.’s blog probably isn’t the most neutral source, itself. In the previous article he posted, he admits; “…I am not a climate scientist… so at best, the guy’s gonna have a more informed opinion then we great unwashed and all. On the other hand, when somebody counters a criticism with “But let’s cut to the chase… So what?”, its kinda hard not to imagine they’ve already got their mind made up already.
#4 “So many of these scientists have turned into activists that they’ll do anything to push people towards their preferred solutions.”
Do you KNOW any scientists? I do and none of them act the way you claim. Please let me know where you got that information as I would like to check it out.
#5 “I believe more research is necessary. Reasonable and coherent research. Not some wild speculation, asserrtions and the magic eight ball or a computer model which on a server that also doubles as a Battlefield 2 server.
Reasonable, coherent research is being done all the time. Unfortunately, claims such as yours and #4’s are always made when the research doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
It seems unbelievable to me that the idea of Global Warming is still being debated. Ice core records, Dendritic chronologies, melting glaciers all point to a warmer earth. The real question people mean to be asking is ‘is this caused by man or nature?’ Unfortunately, the answer is the same…WE need to cut back on our emissions of greenhouse gasses. Regardless of whether or not the warming is due to nature or man, it is inconceivable that we wouldnt try to slow down the obvious warming trends. If these trends continue, lifestyles as we know it are history.
The newest evidence is that major climate changes can occure in as little as 10 years. Are YOU willing to risk it?
Here’s some German scientists on the issue of scientific exaggeration.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-18/exaggerated.htm
Here’s one specifically on hurricanes.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901
Excerpt
The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
A SCIENTIST calling the UN panel politicized. Isn’t that you were looking for?
More research has to be done until scientists agree with what the Republicans want me to believe.
OK, OK. Now even President Bush fesses up that Global Warming is a fact. It is time to pitch in what each of us will give up to help the cause. I suggest we turn off all air conditioners. Let’s double the price of gas with taxes, and use the revenue to fund alternative energy sources (Nuclear generators or a few more Hoover dams. We don’t need to have evening sports events that waste so much electricity on lights. Plus, think of all the electricity that would be saved if cruising the internet or writing stupid blog letters (like this one) were outlawed.
We can’t wait for the Government to do this. These are the times for each of us to make personal sacrifices. That is it for me. I”m signing off and saving a few watts.
Good night.
Jim
#10 – that about sums it up. There is science, and there is what the Republicans want you to believe. How that is considered “a debate” on the issue is beyond me.
I don’t know who said it, but global warming can be summed up like this:
I’m standing on train tracks. A scientist comes and says, “according to my calculations, a train should be arriving in the next 10 minutes. you should get off the tracks”. Now, the scientist may be -wrong- about the train arriving in 10 minutes. The train may never arrive. All of that said, I’m still getting off the tracks, just in case.
This is pretty much exactly the point. The community that devised the principals that led to the very computer you’re typing on are all saying that there may be a problem with the climate and that we’re probably causing it and any of you have the nerve to act like they’re all just out for a buck or two?
Please.
We did not cause it and we can not control it. The people who defend the idea of global warming act as though there is a solution at hand. If we in the western world whould just give up our cars and AC it whould all be fine.
If it is real, it is another one of those things you really can not control. The thaught that there are things we can not control does not occur to these people. Myself I have learned what I can control in my life and do not worry myself about the rest.
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”
Jim Hansen, your favorite global warming scientist, and nowadays he even he admits that the UN is being too pessimistic.
“However, are the IPCC scenarios necessary or even plausible? There are reasons to believe that the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic. … [The] “current trends” growth rate of climate forcings…is at the low end [emphasis added] of the IPCC range of 2-4W/m2 ”
Here’s another scientist in Discover magazine:
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified…,
Good ol’ hyperbole and Straw-man, what would the ignorant do without them.
Two thumbs up to Thorndike on posting number #8 for saying it right. Aren’t we like one of the only civilized countries to still debate this?
It seems the only ad hominem attack which global warming deniers can come up with to refute the real climate scientists is the accusation they’re acting alarmist to generate more research funding. If that were indeed so then the scientists would be highlighting the uncertainties in their results in order to justify further investigation. In actuality, many climatologists are highlighting the high certainty of anthropogenic global warming, so much so “that the pubilc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develop carbon-emission-free fuel sources.” So much for the climate science funding motive.
Re: George of the city (comment 13)
Denialists go through three phases:
1. It isn’t happening
2. Okay, it is happening but it won’t be much of a problem.
3. Okay, it is a really big problem, but it is too late to do anything about it now.
I wonder which panel in this Tom Toles Cartoon (April 4th, 2006 Washington Post) best represents George.
when we’re all dying of melanoma, can i sue all you head-in-the-sand conservatives? are you brave enough to commit to paper your opposition to doing anything to protect the planet from the effects of pollution?
You sound like you want to die of melanoma just so you can spite your political opponents, ken.
Anyway, the levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere have stabilized.
Er, I’m assuming that Ken understands the difference between “global warming” and uv radiation. I hope for his sake that he does…
“You sound like you want to die of melanoma just so you can spite your political opponents, ken.”
not so much, but that’s a great way to avoid answering my question.
Ken –
From your response, I will conclude that you are under the impression that “global warming” causes melanoma.
whoops! — i know, i know, i made a completely errant choice of ailment to make my point.
so let’s skip melanoma — my bad
let’s do revisit the question — can people who are opposed to the reduction of greenhouse gases because they do not believe in global warming be held accountable when they are proven wrong?
>develop carbon-emission-free fuel sources
Nuclear power’s been here for at least 40 years. WHy aren’t you pushing for building more of these plants?
Before all you lemming liberals jump off the edge of the doom and gloom global warming ledge you might just try to read both sides of the arguement. Consider that there are honest people on both sides of the arguement but both sides can’t be right in their conclusions. Either we are just on the brink of global death and doom because of man’s actions or we are just in a global cycle which has occurred many, many times in the past. These cycles alternate between cooling and warming. So it becomes all of us to patiently learn the arguements of both sides to determine which one is the most valid.
It is simply wrong to say that “virtually all scientists” agree with Al “Gloom” Gore and his fear filled movie. For starters try reading from the alternative point of view:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Climate scientists have a serious credibility problem:
http://tinyurl.com/hmron
With this type of hyperbole getting the headlines, it won’t be much longer before “climate scientists” will receive the same ridicule as used car salesmen. For the sake of their profession, they had better start acting more like scientists and less like a 60’s dope-headed, sandal-wearing hippie carrying a sign proclaiming “The End is Near.”
I understand that most climatologists do not act in this manner, but they are the ones who will suffer if they don’t reign in their colleagues.
#29, So what makes this a credibility issue for the scientists? If you read the article, you should see that they are commenting on Gore’s treatment of the SCIENCE behind the movie. This is not a movie like The Day After Tomorrow where science was completely thown out the window in exchange for Hollywood special effects.
Do you see this as a credibility issue for the scientists because they support an idea that you don’t? If you have scientific evidence that is more accurate than what is portrayed, please let us know. That is what is so great about science, scientists are ALWAYS testing hypothesis and if a better theory appears it is tested and accepted.
I hate the way these issues always seem to come back to politics. These days it is quite easy to see where someone stands politically by where they stand on several Scientifc issues. Don’t believe that humans have affected (not CAUSED, but AFFECTED) climate? You are probably Republican. Think evolution is a joke and not possible? Then you are probably Republican. Think that scientists can’be be trusted? Republican. This last one is amazing to me as the scientific community is quite competitive and are always testing other hypothesis. For this reason alone the scientific community is far more trustworthy than any political party. Members of politcal parties are more interested supporting the party than supporting what is right and what is wrong.
As a disclaimer, I belong to no political party. I vote along no political lines. I believe that the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are my Bibles.