The Next Meme
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Global Warming | Miscellanea — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Global warming is responsible for an alarmingly low amount of cyclone activity.
All snark aside, I would certainly not be surprised if there is global warming activity and that we are causing it. I proceed on the assumption that we are until proven otherwise, being the cautious person I tend to be when issues like potential global cataclysms come to the fore. But after hearing that cyclones and hurricanes would dramatically increase in number, thanks to global warming, this should show that we have not yet fully mastered the art of predicting what Nature will do. A little humility is in order.
« Hey You! If You Are Reading This, You Are Just Like Hitler. You Murderer. — Comments (314) | Harry Reid plays partisan politics with the California wildfires — Comments (5) »
The Next Meme 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...that there is no correlation between global warming and hurricane activity. By some accounts Katrina is our own fault. I have always chalked Katrina up to a confluence of bad luck, the maintenance schedule in the rotten boroughs, and the poltical climate in New Orleans (bon temps roulez).
Everyone on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast should be looking for homes inland at this juncture, according to some alarmists. A huge upsurge in hurricane activity for next year is always possible, but the underlying cause is now terminally in doubt. Speaking as a professional scientist to others, try using more than one independant variable next time, rather than one dependant variable (like CO2 or fossil fuel consumption), you rubes, and tell the policitians to kick back and wait for a valid answer.
I can safely declare for my own part (and hopefully yours as well) that hurricane activity related through the concept of AGW is completely dead. Data to the contrary is all one needs to invalidate a theory. So find another theory, and don't bother to put a new spin on the old one, because the only spin I'm getting from my hurricanes is the hot air coming from alarmists.
My original point about "Subtropical" Storm Andrea (there ain't no such thing) and Erin as it turns out, (scroll to the bottom of Pezman's link, listing Erin as "weak weak weak") stands. They should not have been named storms. Early on in the season it was clear to me that a certain amount of stacking the deck was going to occur, in a desperate attempt to maximize a list of named storms. Even with that, we have only gotten to Noel just now. Moreover, some of the storms that passed as tropical storms this year were so disorganized (eyeless), it was unclear to me how they could be regarded as anything more than thunderstorms beyond a moment's flutter of sustained winds.
Too bad for some that all that hurricane activity petered out before the 2008 Election Year. Too bad also that the Nobel Peace Committee couldn't contain its own zealotry to see this season out (or were they rushing to get Al in under the wire, I wonder). Raising awareness should never be the reason for giving out a Nobel, not even in Peace or Literature.
For heaven's sake, even Arafat in the end, scumbag that he was, did more toward Peace by allowing the process to occur to some degree. That's more than Gore, who is still only seeking power through fear.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin
Why not, it seems to be the cause of everything.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Best yard I ever had was 100% crabgrass.
Easy to maintain. Doesn't die. Stays green regardless how much (or how little) water it gets. Doesn't grow too tall. Soft and springy underfoot once it gets thick enough.
Only problem I had with it was that the edging was a pain...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
You mean Global warming causes Bush? But, Bush causes global warming? I'm sooo confused!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And, yes, Joliphant, GW does cause halitosis. And bunions, too.
no matter how conflicting the results, it is most certainly not right. AGW is most certainly proof of that concept.
I haven't heard anyone knowledgeable about the subject claim that. The connection, which is relatively obvious, is that you'd get more intense storms as ocean temperatures rise. (Indeed, six of the the ten most intense Atlantic hurricanes on record have been in the past ten years.) Of course there many other factors, most notably wind sheer, so modeling hurricane intensity remains difficult. Hurricane formation is even more poorly understood and doesn't seem to be closely connected to temperature, other than that there's certain minimum requirements.
This is indicative a larger problem in the whole global warming / climate change debate where people on both sides will try to draw broad conclusions from what's happening right now, rather than looking at long term data. How many times have you heard something a long the lines of, "It's been unseasonably warm the week, must be global warming!" or "It's twenty below out today, Al Gore must feel pretty stupid!"? The whole issue has become so hyper-politicized that it's become impossible to have a rational discuss about it.
highest category storms on record.
Which leaves out the dozens of rather extreme hurricanes from before they started getting category ratings. (you know, the storms before 1930, some of which were HUGE).
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
You said it better than I could have.
but let me add to this that I have never heard any Meteorologist say that Global Warming would increase the number of storms. The only thing most are willing to say is that the intensity of storms will be higher in the long term.
This season has been an odd one, but as I'm sure people know, a cold snap doesn't indicate global cooling, nor does a heat wave indicate global warming. No matter what snarky comments are said on either side of the debate.
Look at trends and then look at correlation, and then determine if there is a causation there.
I don't expect a rational discussion because almost no one knows enough to have a rational discussion.
To use a bad car analogy, it'd be like giving someone a set of tools and a car and a diagnostic computer and asking to determine what, if anything is wrong with the 350Z that's parked on the side of the road. We simply don't have the tools and knowledge to give a good answer.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
When I couldn't turn on the news and fail to hear how monster storms from global warming were going to scrape Florida into the sea.
Now what we have are cries of "What we never said that" Well I sure as heck don't remember anyone stopping the talking heads from saying it. I don't even remember anyone contradicting them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I want to take the side of the anti-AGW people on this particular thing. It's true, there are alot on my side who use those short-term anecdotal events to say "Aha! No AGW!". These are not the bright people on my side, sadly.
But alot of us (let me call us 'anti-hoaxers' for this discussion) are merely pointing out these events to mock the AGW-hoaxers. We are at a fundamentally different place than the hoaxers. The hoaxers (most of them) make great hay of the events that break in their favor (so to speak) as VALIDATING the AGW storyline. But the anti-hoaxers don't take single events and short-term trends as establishing anything. We point out the events that break in our favor (so to speak) because it DOES illustrate that (that short-term trends establish nothing). And because it's fun to poke pointy sticks in the eyes of religious nuts. Rush calls this "illustrating absurdity by using absurdity."
So, case in point: Karina + Rita. The hoaxers howled (big surprise). But what happened subsequently is axiomatic: every year since then, the almighty climatologist/meteorologist hoaxer crowd (yes, a bunch of SCIENTISTS who should know better) have predicted abnormally high numbers (and intensities) of hurricanes. These 3 years have been pretty well the opposite, rightly making the hoaxers look stupid. And you know what? They picked it that way because they BELIEVE that AGW has caused a trend. They allowed their religion to interfere with good science.
MY side? Well, we've had great fun pointing out these mild hurricane years. Not because it 'disproves' AGW (although it adds to a pretty solid case that 'we don't KNOW'). But because it makes the hoaxers look stupid. Which is an end to itself.
There will certainly be big hurricane years in the future, because that is the nature of things. Largely unpredictable. My side understands that.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Personally, I'll continue to believe "global warming" is nothing more than a naturally occurring, cyclical weather pattern until otherwise proven.
Short of nuclear war, I find it somewhat arrogant to think humankind can have quite the impact on nature that enviro's and alarmist are always yelling about.
R.J.
In the 80's it was the impending threat of nuclear war until the collapse of the USSR, then it was the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all, and now global warming is the left's crisis dujour! "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" Sir Winston Churchill
Our knowledge of how the earth works is still very limited but growing. We know enough to be concerned but the level of certainty placed on climate predictions is just plain arrogant.