Does the controversy over global warmings effects on hurricanes change the basic facts about it?

Question

There is a legitimate scientific controversy about the effects of global warming on hurricanes. Attributing any single hurricane to global warming is unscientific.

But most all of the scientists on both sides of the global warming issue agree that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

Raising some detail and claiming it disproves the basic theory is an old trick of those who deny evolution.

Answer 1

yes yes yes and bob you are always right!

Answer 2

No, the appearance of controversy over hurricanes is an argument about a theoretical symptom of climate change, not a disagreement about the causes or other effects of climate change.  So no, it doesn't affect the theory at all.

Furthermore, whether or not the attempts to create controversy over hurricanes are effective is debatable.  For example, the hottest year globally was also an incredibly strong hurricane year:

"The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, repeatedly shattering previous records. The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with at least 2,280 deaths and record damages of over $128 billion USD."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlant...

HURRICANES ARE GETTING STRONGER, STUDY SAYS

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

“What we found was rather astonishing,” said Webster. “In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year globally. Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally.”

Study links more hurricanes, climate change

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurrican...

"We're seeing a quite substantial increase in hurricanes over the last century, very closely related to increases in sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean," says study author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase.

---

Hurricane data is highly variable and noisy and difficult to draw clear conclusions from.  It's worth monitoring, but isn't central to global warming theory.

Answer 3

no, its the same with the hockey stick graph. although they are related to global warming they are not critical to it.

Dr Jello you are confusing the Church with science. it was the Church that declared that the earth was the centre of the universe.

edit you may also be aware jello that Aristotle dismissed physical observation in favor of logically reasoning everything out. not very scientific if you ask me. this also sounds oddly like a few of your arguments. eg

co2 is such a small part of the atmosphere so it can have no effect or human emissions are too small.

Answer 4

"But most all of the scientists on both sides of the global warming issue agree that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us."

That statement begs the question, what is your view of both sides of the global warming issue.  There are those that agree with you and those that agree with you.  That has got to be one of the most rediculous sentences I have read in quite a while.

Answer 5

Of the many debatable topics wrt global warming is whether global warming is indeed a bad thing.  Does it cause more hurricanes?  Well, the AGW nuts claim it does because of warmer ocean temps.  But wait, there is another effect involving winds aloft weakening storms countering this effect so we now don't know if hurricanes are more frequent and powerful or not.

The same goes for food production.  A warmer planet will have more arable land as the great expanses in Canada and Russia/Siberia/Northern Europe, become warm enough to farm.  Sea level effects are also in doubt since snowfall will possibly increase on the high plains of Antarctica and Greenland sequestering water.

I'll argue, point by point that global warming, in and of itself, is beneficial to earth as a habitat for people.

Answer 6

There is also a legitimate scientific controversy over AGW, and at this point the pro-AGW side requires some benefit of the doubt, which means its credibility is at issue.

Distortion, exaggeration, hyperbole and outright lying reduce said credibility.

Standing silent while the media engage in what you consider a "noble lie" - a "little lie" to advance a "greater truth" - also reduces said credibility.

And the hurricane question is only one example.   Others include the true cause of Mt. Kilimanjaro's declining ice cap, as well as the polar bear population.

Specifically with respect to my question, I've seen "commondreams" actually used as source material to support the AGW argument on this forum.  

Would you, Bob, use the commondreams site as a source?

Answer 7

The real problem is that Co2 does not contribute to global warming.  Global Warming is a political tool that Al Gore came up with to get back in the lime light and to make America look bad.  Its not true.

Answer 8

You know Bob, I try to stay current on this topic as much as anyone, yet I have never seen a single discrepancy between the meteorological data and the current scientific thinking on Global Warming.  Have you?  I see closeminded people on here post "THEY predicted such and so, and it didn't happen so that proves Global Warming is bogus".  When I check I find that either (A) THEY did not predict that at all, or (B) THEY did predict it and it did happen.

Then there is the most elementary of all elementary points:  A true statement can be used to prove another statement true, or false.  A false statement cannot be used to prove anything except itself.  So even if these folks did happen to get one right eventually, using the monkeys and typewriters principle, they would still (1) be showing their ignorance of elementary scientific reasoning and (2) prove nothing.

Answer 9

Yes.  It just goes to show the "scientists" arent really sure.  They rely on the fact that there is a possibility that they are correct, and when it happens, it makes them look smart.  Consequently, if they are wrong, and constantly change their theory to match up with what is really going on, it makes them a lot less credible.  Attributing any single hurricane is unscientific?  than why does the IPCC and many pro-global warming people use Katrina as a evidence for their theory?

I think it would be smart for them to say " WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON HURRICANES"  Since we know major hurricanes have happened long before the idea of global warming was being used like it is.

Answer 10

If you read Chris lansea's letter of resignation from the IPCC, there was never really any scientific basis for their conclusions on hurricanes.

But it does show you how flawed the IPCC process is, and how biased they are.  This is not a scientific body.  They are a political body that is masquerading under the banner of science to drive a political agenda.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

Answer 11

No Bob - A majority of selected scientist believe man is the cause for warming.

The scientist at NASA's Earth Observatory state that the Sun is responsible for up to half of the warming, natural causes for some, and man comes in third.

Clearly, it's who you choose to believe that forms a persons opinions on global warming.  It's purely subjective.

Warmers have made so many wild claims about the climate that everyone should look at their predictions with skepticism.  They haven't earned the publics trust.

Science based on the opinion of a majority, the science of consensus is what determined the Earth was the center of the solar system.

[Edit] Gengi - The theory of geocentric solar system was taught by Aristotle, Plato, and Ptolemy in the 6th century BC., long before the church.  Geo-centrism was the view of the consensus of the scholars at the time and adopted by the church, which was the gvmt of those times.

Sounds a lot like global warming, doesn't it?

[Edit] Sure Bob, but you leave just one part out.  Galileo had the math to back him up to know where the planets would be anytime in the future.  Anyone could look at Galileo's work to see if he was right.  No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder in the future, and believers claims that only climatologist are smart enough to make this determination, and we should blindly follow them.

Answer 12

No, hurricane predictions have little to do with the AGW theory.  They are an indicator, not a cause.  As you say, there is legitimate scientific controversy about the effects of global warming on hurricane frequency and intensity.  Warmer sea surface temps (SSTs) should cause stronger hurricanes, but increased windshear should cause weaker hurricanes.  Since global warming increases both SSTs and windshear, it's uncertain what the net effect will be.

Global warming skeptics often employ this tactic of picking on one minor aspect of the AGW theory and claiming if it's wrong, the theory is disproven.  Another frequent example is the polar bear population.  If polar bears are able to adapt to decreasing sea ice, that doesn't say anything about the AGW theory.  If hurricanes are effected in a way we don't expect, that doesn't say anything about the AGW theory either, except perhaps that we don't understand the full impacts of global warming on hurricanes.

I also really wish that certain deniers would stop lying about NASA's stance on AGW.  Their conclusion is that solar influences are responsible for at most 50% of the warming over the 20th century, and most of that was in the first half of the century.  I don't think anybody at NASA doubts that the AGW theory is correct.  In fact, James Hansen, head of NASA GISS, is one of the AGW theory's longest and most outspoken proponents.

Answer 13

Ah! Dr Jello were do you find these NASA scientists that don't seem to have names, or links to their comments.

You would think a NASA scientist would know that the Sun is responsible for 100% of the warming of the Earth. And Co2 is responsible for the retention of a small part of that heat (like a blanket) with out the Sun Earth would be more like Pluto -378 to -396 F. Or with the Sun and little atmosphere the temp would be more like Mars -140°C the roughly normal atmosphere of earth keeps at the mean of ~14c that is about 150c difference that nature handles we have managed to add just 0.7°c/1°F over a century with all the billions of tons of Co2 and other gases we put into the atmosphere. Will this effect the Earth, No natural cycles in the past have been much bigger, but it will effect us as we like to build cities in bays, rivers and near the coast.

Answer 14

so-called global warming is as real as the easter bunny.

global climate change, is a much better term.  but it kinda takes the blame off humans, so it's not catching on.......

that being said, humans should be responsible stewards of the planet.

the weather people have been doing their jobs for decades, and can't accurately predict today.  i just can't swallow something with so many variables as global warming.

Answer 15

As Karl Rove said, "My denial of reality disproves reality".