Experts say global warming is causing stronger hurricanes

I don't buy it. I'm open to the idea of global warming...open to the idea that we're a cause of it. But hurricanes run in cycles. Check out the storms from the 50's and 60's...repeated cat 4's. Then they just disappeared for a while...were much rarer. Seems like it moves in cycles. But we have what...100 years of data?? For a planet that's billions of years old??

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/
About global warming and hurricane intensities...
I know from the comments I receive here, and in e-mails, that a number of you believe global warming to be something of a ruse. But the fact remains that the large majority of scientists I speak with believe human activity -- most notably through the doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- is causing Earth to grow warmer.

However, I was struck at the magnitude of the divide in writing this story about whether global warming is causing more extreme weather.

Reporters try to find advocates for both sides of a controversy when writing a story, it's a basic tenet of being fair. However, it has increasingly become difficult to find those scientists who doubt the validity of global warming. I end up returning to the same set of skeptics.

Not so with hurricanes, and whether warmer sea temperatures are causing them to become more intense. William Gray, the Colorado State University hurricane forecaster of note, is not buying it. Nor is Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert of note whom I quoted today.

And then I received a call this morning from none other than Neil Frank, KHOU's eminent weather forecaster and former head of the National Hurricane Center. He, too, doubts hurricanes are being made stronger by global warming.

It's an interesting contrast to the authors of the paper, who made strong comments during a teleconference with reporters Wednesday about their work, and the clear link they believed they found between warmer seas and more intense storms.

What's the truth? I don't know. There's so much variability inherent from storm season to storm season, it's going to take a long time to get enough data to settle the debate.

Until then the seas are likely to continue to warm, and the Gulf coast will be threatened by storms. It's a risk those of us who live near the coast have chosen to accept.

 

There are some very interesting articles that I've read lately. One is that the man made influences have actually reversed the cooling trend the planet is supposed to be in now.

No one can deny that the Earth is getting warmer, but the big question is whether we are to blame.

Also this a great link that I saw this morning on another website. The more we know about our history the better. Paleotempestology

 

There's no thorough evidence showing global warming and its consequences.
We dont know the recent warming is systematic or just a natural variability.
Right now these are all debatable from scientific or social perspectives.

However, various models do suggest increased natural disasters caused by
global warming (if its systematic). While we can still debate on science,
the government should be very careful about such issues and support
scientific research to improve our understanding about them. However,
so far I find little commitment from the current government. As far as
I know, global change fundings (mainly from NASA, EPA and NSF) has
been cut significantly since President Bush took the office. Indeep, this has
been a trend accross all science disciplines. For example, this year NIH see
the same budget last year, which is a decrease considering inflation.

 

For all those that refuse to beleive humans are to blame for global warming... what if you are wrong?

Wouldn't the conservative approach be to assume we ARE to blame until proven otherwise given the consequences? The stakes are pretty high on this question!

 

Please read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and get back to us afterwards with your discussion.

 

So genetically rebuilt dinosaurs sent back in time to medievil France to capture a talking ape named Amy are responsible for global warming?

 

Some 'science' for those interested...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece

Global warming 'past the point of no return'

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has
convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may
have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the
climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the
Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming
which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that
has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of
years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so
rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat
from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and
so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a
"tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the
continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land
glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels
dramatically.

Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the
extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest
monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2
per cent below the long-term average.

Experts believe that such a loss of Arctic sea ice in
summer has not occurred in hundreds and possibly
thousands of years. It is the fourth year in a row that
the sea ice in August has fallen below the monthly
downward trend - a clear sign that melting has
accelerated.

Scientists are now preparing to report a record loss of
Arctic sea ice for September, when the surface area
covered by the ice traditionally reaches its minimum
extent at the end of the summer melting period.

Sea ice naturally melts in summer and reforms in winter
but for the first time on record this annual rebound did
not occur last winter when the ice of the Arctic failed
to recover significantly.

Arctic specialists at the US National Snow and Ice Data
Centre at Colorado University, who have documented the
gradual loss of polar sea ice since 1978, believe that a
more dramatic melt began about four years ago.

In September 2002 the sea ice coverage of the Arctic
reached its lowest level in recorded history. Such lows
have normally been followed the next year by a rebound
to more normal levels, but this did not occur in the
summers of either 2003 or 2004. This summer has been
even worse. The surface area covered by sea ice was at a
record monthly minimum for each of the summer months -
June, July and now August.

Scientists analysing the latest satellite data for
September - the traditional minimum extent for each
summer - are preparing to announce a significant shift
in the stability of the Arctic sea ice, the northern
hemisphere's major "heat sink" that moderates climatic
extremes.

"The changes we've seen in the Arctic over the past few
decades are nothing short of remarkable," said Mark
Serreze, one of the scientists at the Snow and Ice Data
Centre who monitor Arctic sea ice.

Scientists at the data centre are bracing themselves for
the 2005 annual minimum, which is expected to be reached
in mid-September, when another record loss is forecast.
A major announcement is scheduled for 20 September. "It
looks like we're going to exceed it or be real close one
way or the other. It is probably going to be at least as
comparable to September 2002," Dr Serreze said.

"This will be four Septembers in a row that we've seen a
downward trend. The feeling is we are reaching a tipping
point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not
recover."

The extent of the sea ice in September is the most
valuable indicator of its health. This year's record
melt means that more of the long-term ice formed over
many winters - so called multi-year ice - has
disappeared than at any time in recorded history.

Sea ice floats on the surface of the Arctic Ocean and
its neighbouring seas and normally covers an area of
some 7 million square kilometres (2.4 million square
miles) during September - about the size of Australia.
However, in September 2002, this dwindled to about 2
million square miles - 16 per cent below average.

Sea ice data for August closely mirrors that for
September and last month's record low - 18.2 per cent
below the monthly average - strongly suggests that this
September will see the smallest coverage of Arctic sea
ice ever recorded.

As more and more sea ice is lost during the summer,
greater expanses of open ocean are exposed to the sun
which increases the rate at which heat is absorbed in
the Arctic region, Dr Serreze said.

Sea ice reflects up to 80 per cent of sunlight hitting
it but this "albedo effect" is mostly lost when the sea
is uncovered. "We've exposed all this dark ocean to the
sun's heat so that the overall heat content increases,"
he explained.

Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be
entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but
some scientists now believe that even this dire
prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter
Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge
University.

"When the ice becomes so thin it breaks up mechanically
rather than thermodynamically. So these predictions may
well be on the over-optimistic side," he said.

As the sea ice melts, and more of the sun's energy is
absorbed by the exposed ocean, a positive feedback is
created leading to the loss of yet more ice, Professor
Wadhams said.

"If anything we may be underestimating the dangers. The
computer models may not take into account collaborative
positive feedback," he said.

Sea ice keeps a cap on frigid water, keeping it cold and
protecting it from heating up. Losing the sea ice of the
Arctic is likely to have major repercussions for the
climate, he said. "There could be dramatic changes to
the climate of the northern region due to the creation
of a vast expanse of open water where there was once
effectively land," Professor Wadhams said. "You're
essentially changing land into ocean and the creation of
a huge area of open ocean where there was once land will
have a very big impact on other climate parameters," he
said.

 

Ok, fine you win. Now what? What the hell you gonna do about it - make us all ride light rail?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

 

That's actually not a bad idea. Afterall, it's better than riding boat once
the polar ice melt!

But that transition won't be easy. Right now we should focus on developing
environment-friendly vehicles.

 

Possibly, but look out for those outer-loopers who dont understand red lights!

 

The science behind Globill Warmin is downrite fuzzy. And besides, all uh these damn nerdy 'n introverteded scientists 'n professurs, they can't be trusted. They've got their own agendas up there in aca, acadeem, in the big schools. See them peeples is evil I tell yer. Aint no two ways about it. They just plain evil. Now my boys down at ExxonMobil 'n Chevron 'n Carlyle, thems good folk. They can be trusted, ya see. They ginuwinly cares about the American peeples. If somethin was a goin rong, I have the utmost faith they'd uh let me know about it faster than a possum grabs a treeplum in April. So I asks the American public now. Don't buy into all this fear 'n greed these greedy scientists is tryin to spread. Keep on filler upin yer SUV's 'n enjoy this here great land. Keep on a truckin'. Exxon only gots $25-$35 billions in cash right now. But wait just you wait. When they gets up tuh about 50-60, you gonna see that trickle down effect start to take its course. What's good for the gander gonna be good fer the goose. And I promise we still gonna have a few trees around when that day comes. In fact, just a cuppill nights ago God told me this directly. He speaks to me from time to time, ya know.

 

Global cooling
Seven steps you can take to fight warming of planet

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/18/INGG5EO58K1.DTL

Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, September 18, 2005

Within days of Hurricane Katrina, it erupted into a national debate. Conservatives. Liberals. Radicals. Moderates. All of them (including Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken) were talking about a subject that usually ranks low in the media food chain (behind Iraq and Martha Stewart) but that now was on everyone's minds: global warming. Was it in any way to blame for the ferociousness of the weather system that devastated New Orleans?

Scientists disagree about whether there was a connection (was Katrina more intense, for example, because of Gulf of Mexico waters heated by global warming?).

Regardless, the tragedy has forced many people to rethink the threat -- and to ask how to combat a silent scourge that, like a slow-motion Godzilla, threatens to destabilize everything in its path.

Until now, global warming has been an abstraction to most Americans. Yes, the polar ice caps are melting. Yes, ocean waters are heating up. Yes, species of birds are altering their migration and breeding patterns because of climate changes.

But such shifts are undetectable to the average person. In a poll for ABC News in July, 66 percent of those responding said global warming will not affect their lives.

A year earlier, a Gallup survey found that nearly half of Americans worried "only a little" or "not at all" about global warming or "the greenhouse effect."

These views have consequences. The United States accounts for 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its energy use.

Disproportionately, Americans are adding to the problem of global warming, and disproportionately, Americans are blase about combating it. While 81 percent of Britons say their country should adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions, only 42 percent of Americans support Kyoto, according to Gallup.

"The difference is night and day," says Camille Parmesan, a professor of ecology, behavior and conservation at the University of Texas at Austin.

"Talking to people (in Europe) who are labor workers, taxi drivers, whatever, everyone knows that global warming is happening, and it's due to humans causing changes in the atmosphere. When I give public lectures in the United States, even when the audience is supposedly educated -- not necessarily scientists but medical doctors and businesspeople -- they still believe that global warming is being debated in scientific circles and that there's no agreement as to what's happening or why."

Residents of the Bay Area may congratulate themselves for being more environmentally savvy than their fellow citizens.

Yet it's always been easier to sport a bumper sticker or sign an online petition or critique the Bush administration's lackadaisical environmental record than to make individual sacrifices that could make a tiny but tangible difference.

Hurricane Katrina, the experts say, could be a catalyst that changes Americans' viewpoints about the effects of environmental degradation -- and helps change private behavior as well.

What's not in doubt: Global warming is being exacerbated by carbon dioxide emissions spewed by cars, airplanes and factories. If Americans want to minimize it, the biggest thing they can do is cut back on the gas they use for transportation.

This can be difficult in an America where convenience, time pressures and other burdens encourage wasteful habits. Still, experts say, changing even one habit can be beneficial not just for the environment but for the pocketbook.

What follows are seven measures that nearly any adult can use to combat global warming. Some readers may already have made these changes.

Two-thirds of readers who responded to a query from the paper's Two Cents pool said they already were taking steps to neutralize global warming. One even lambasted Al Gore as a hypocrite for not flying on airlines that use soybean oil as fuel. Soybean fuel? That's another measure for serious consideration.

1. Ditch the SUV. Ditch any car, in fact, that doesn't get at least 30 miles to the gallon. "The biggest single step we can take to cut our global warming emissions -- both nationally and individually -- is to drive a vehicle that goes farther on a gallon of gas," says Brendan Bell, associate Washington representative for the Sierra Club's Global Warming & Energy Program.

"Every gallon of gas that we burn in our cars and trucks creates 28 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution. That's 19 pounds directly from the tail pipe and 9 pounds from refining and transporting the fuel around and all that.

"So, driving a Toyota Prius over the lifetime of the vehicle is going to create 32 tons of global warming pollution. But if you drive, say, an average sedan like a Chevy Malibu, you're going to create 83 tons of global warming emissions. If you drive something like a Chevy Suburban, you're creating 134 tons of carbon dioxide pollution. Better fuel economy can make significant reductions in how much global warming gases you're creating personally. If you're not driving at all, you're not creating any emissions."

2. Buy local, local, local. Purchasing food and other items made locally means buying products that have used less gas to be taken to stores. "The major sources of emissions in this country are transportation and electricity production," says Bell. "If you're eating locally grown food, there's less transportation involved in taking that food to you."

3. Use a clothesline, not a dryer, which needs gobs of electricity to do its job correctly. "In Europe, no one has dryers," Parmesan says. "They wash their clothes, and they hang them on a line. Even the wealthiest people do this. They turn to me and they say, 'Why do you guys dry your clothes in a dryer? This is ridiculous. What's the matter with the sun?' "

4. At home, wear sweaters during the winter, shorts in the summer. Heating and air conditioning are unnecessary when you dress appropriately indoors, says Parmesan. It can mean the difference between a $100 electricity bill and a $50 one. "I say (to people), 'How about being a little more uncomfortable in your house -- having it be a bit cool in the winter and a bit warm in the summer? And dressing accordingly so you can adjust to that?' " Parmesan says.

5. Install solar paneling. Although expensive at first, solar paneling saves money (and energy) in the long term -- to the point that consumers can actually make dollars by selling their excess energy to the city in which they live. Consumers with solar paneling still have their regular electricity lines that are connected to their city's power grid, so sunless stretches don't mean being cut off from electricity.

"My wife and I put (solar panels) on our roof and that generates some, though not all, of our power," says William Schlesinger, dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. Installing a solar-panel system can cost more than $20,000, but it can save hundreds of dollars a month, which adds up to that same $20,000 within a short time period.

"It's not that expensive anymore to put solar panels all over your house roof," says Parmesan. "It's not better advertised because it's not something that's a corporate interest, so people don't think of it as much as perhaps they should."

6. Change your lightbulbs. Switching regular bulbs with compact fluorescent lights uses a quarter of the electricity of regular bulbs -- and fluorescents last 10 times longer than regular bulbs, according to the Sierra Club.

7. Be a newshound, follow the issues, vote for those who'll make a difference, and hang out with others who feel the same way you do. It's one thing to think about global warming, another to coordinate with others about electing people who'll make a difference at a local, state or national level.

The Internet has groups built around connecting people who want to befriend other environmentally conscious people: Call them global warming clubs. At meetup.com, for example, people from Oakland, Petaluma and Santa Rosa have posts saying they want to meet others who are passionate about combating global warming.

These seven suggestions aren't exhaustive. Planting a tree in a garden (trees cut down on carbon dioxide) or buying an energy-efficient washer could be just as important. This isn't to say that saving the environment is a snap. Some of the experts interviewed admitted that they struggle with keeping their own advice.

"A lot of universities in Europe don't have air conditioning, which personally I find quite uncomfortable," says Parmesan.

"But I was really scoffed at when I complained one time in Montpellier (France, where she worked briefly), in the middle of the summertime, when it was 95 degrees. I was told, 'You soft American. What's the matter with being a little hot?' Energy is more expensive there. ...

"I do run air conditioning in the summertime in Texas, I have to admit. I try to keep it warmer, though. I try to keep it around 82 (degrees) rather than 65. I dress very lightly in the summertime, and I drink a lot of iced tea. It's fine, but I have to admit that I can't completely go without (air conditioning)."

So, there you go. It's easier said than done, even for those who know the science of a problem that's only getting worse as time moves on.

1. Ditch any car that doesn't get at least 30 miles to the gallon.

2. Buy local. It reduces the amount of gas used to transport products.

3. Use a clothesline, not a dryer.

4. At home, wear sweaters during the winter, shorts in the summer.

5. Install solar paneling.

6. Switch to fluorescent light bulbs.

7. Follow the issues, and vote

 

In a recent survey (done before Katrina) among U.S. and 10 European countries, "Americans feel significantly more likely to be personally affected by terrorism (71% vs. 53% of Europeans), by the spread of nuclear weapons (67% vs. 55%) and by Islamic fundamentalism (50% vs. 40%)," at the same time, "Europeans worry more than Americans (73% to 64%) about global warming."

My wife, who's on a business trip in Europe, told me this morning from Brussels, Belgium, that she saw "everybody is riding bike in the city, to the effect of observing a 'No Car Day' today."

 

Last time I checked, Crichton is a fiction writer. Is he doing science books now?

 

With new very fuel effecient vehicles that are very well-made and fun to drive (like the new Civic, which I test-drove and was impressed by) driving a vehicle that can get up to 30 miles/gal isn't too hard to do.

I really think that if SUVs and trucks are only sold to people who ACTUALLY NEED IT, and not a tiny soccer mom who can barely see the road in her Expedition, that would go a looooooooong way in cutting down our oil consumption and reducing pollution.

 

Good for them! The Europeans are doing their part, which is admirable for people who CAN live an extravagant lifestyle similar to ours, but choose not to, or have made it economically unfeasible to do so.

Anyways, I attribute this to more of a cultural difference between the Americans and the Western Europeans.

 

Yeah right.

I hate soccer moms.

 

Oh I am not a hypocrite, believe me. My statement stands in regards to the 'old Civic', but I test-drove the new 2006 EX model (and this isn't even the 200-hp coupe ) and was very impressed. It's a LOT better than the older model, it's Acura good.