Al Gore, A Perfect Storm Revisited

From several sane articles I have read on the subject, the controversy is that there is a "hockeystick" but the length of the stick is in question.

In other words, the pro-global warming crowd has been suggesting that the world has never been as warm. Upon peer review, it has been determined that the world has not been as warm in 400 years, but before that we really do not have good information.

We do know that grain was being grown in Greenland for several centuries.....then it got colder.

We also know that the current warming trend seems to be going up (the hockey stick) but that most of our data comes from an era where the world could measured.

What is appalling is the lack of good science in The Global Warming debate.

Allan M. R. MacRae is a professional engineer and investment banker. Born and raised in Quebec, he has lived in Alberta since 1977. He has worked in the energy industry in Canadian and international oil and gas and the Athabasca oil sands

Geez, Benji, don't you get tired of trotting out the latest gas and oil prostitute as a response to real, peer-reviewed science?

Greg, as the article states, the hockey stick is nonsense. The computer program used will produce a hockey stick shape no matter what data is inputed.

The temperature graphs including the hockey stick and one of the last 1000 years is HERE

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

I actually work for a risk management company that does significant -- significant, research so that we can model extream catastrophic events such as severe thunder, hurricanes, earthquakes, et cet.
My biggest problem with this debate - are the politicians and the activists - on both sides (all three/four) -- and I can't even call it a debate because politicians should not be debating science. The only possible place non-scientists should think their opinion matters is in cases where their perhaps a strong consensus with direct ethical or policy implications. Weather does not.
Certainly polution is bad - we all agree - but when you spend you life modeling millions of simulated weather related events, and you know that their is no honest scientific way to determine the cause of global warming - or if it in fact is nothing bad natural oscillations - then it's irresponsible to take any side in the issue.
Carbon emmissions are bad, thats a fact. And I take a personal responsibility by not driving very much, using public transportation as much as possible - and when bmw comes out with a hybrid - I will trade in mine which gets crappy mpg.
I think its good and healthy that Ben posted this because it represents a view, and some cited people that often get drowned out by the cacophony of non-scientists who start from a political position - and find the science to back it up. And for this I mean both those in the Gore camp, and those in opposition to Gore.

Thanks for your comments, Will. I spent only a few months trying to understand global warming and it quickly became obvious that our climate is far too complex to understand with our present tools.

I note that the NOAA head and a few others in the weather business have made clear that global warming cannot be proven to have had an effect on hurricanes.

Thanks again, Ben

And what of S. Fred Singer?

Well, ol' Fred's not above slinging an opinion for a few bucks.

Fred used to write articles and op/eds about how second-hand smoke wasn't dangerous to anyone.

Of course, he didn't disclose he was being paid by the Tobacco Institute.

Now, Fred tells us global warming is a myth. In 2001, Fred wrote a letter to the Washington Post saying he had never received a cent from the oil companies. Yet, in 1998, Singer's institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, recived $75,000 from Exxon Mobil.

Maybe it depends on one's definition of "never."

I note that the NOAA head and a few others in the weather business have made clear that global warming cannot be proven to have had an effect on hurricanes.

Back at the academy, we call this a quibble; not quite a lie but not the whole truth. It's an attempt to deceive.

And it's still a violation of the Honor Code.

E's Jennifer Vogel took on the subject of global warming and hurricanes in the May/June issue this year: "'There are a number of factors that go into making hurricanes,' says Ruth Curry, research specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Those factors include El Nio cycles, upper stratospheric circulation patterns and the amount of rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa. Sometimes they combine to create conditions ripe for hurricanes and sometimes they work against each other. The 2004 hurricane season is primarily attributed to alignment of these three critical elements.

"The general scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes is this: Hurricanes won't necessarily become more frequent, but they will become more intense. While ocean and atmospheric circulation is the engine of a hurricane, heat is the fuel. 'In order to form, a hurricane must have ocean temperature of at least 80 degrees down to a depth of 164 feet,' says Curry. 'Sea surface temperatures all over the tropics are running 1.8 to 3.6 degrees above normal. This is due to global warming.' Thus, when other factors line up to form a storm, a warmer ocean means it will be all the more powerful and destructive."

......

NOAA simulations indicate that global warming over the next 80 years could increase hurricane wind speeds an average of five to 10 percent, which means a jump of half a category in hurricane-intensity measurement. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [In August], the agency raised its already-high hurricane forecast for this year to 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes and five to seven that would reach major-hurricane status. That could make 2005 one of the most violent hurricane seasons ever recorded. A typical storm year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes."

One only need visit NOAA's website to see how Benji prevaricates:

NOAA on Hurricanes and Global Warming

Excerpt:

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

l

Jade - this is exactly why non-scientists shouldn't get all hot and wet while re-using scientists quotes - because when scientists state things, they very well may mean something alot different from what a lay person may believe they are saying - case in point, last sentence"
"due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures."

The problem with that sentence is that sea surface temperatures are higher in recent years --but-- we have very limited data - and we have ABSOLUTELY - no idea why.... it could be global warming, but then again, it may be natural oscillations in median water temperature in the gulf basin. The experts are at odds (and Fred Singer is not an expert, he's a statician for higher whose making alot of money whoring for the energy industry) --

But the point is this - responsible scientists are not making the inductive leap from global warming to us causing global warming because the axioms of that closed proof are not agreed.

People will believe what they believe, facts not withstanding, and no emotional argument was ever won with reason or logic. This one is no exception.

Will: I hear what you're saying but let's face facts--global warming or climate change isn't some obscure, esoteric hypothesis. It is the consensus view of the scientific community.

And let's face the fact the few naysayers out there are being paid to advocate a POV that isn't based on science but on economic and political grounds.

But the point is this - responsible scientists are not making the inductive leap from global warming to us causing global warming because the axioms of that closed proof are not agreed.

Nope. Again, it is the scientific community's consensus that manmade greenhouse gases are predominantly responsible for climate change.

NOAA simulations indicate that global warming over the next 80 years could increase hurricane wind speeds an average of five to 10 percent, which means a jump of half a category in hurricane-intensity measurement. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [In August], - cited by Jade Gold

One small problem there Jade.

Hurricane come in cycles.

See New Scientist: Hurricane cycle yet to reach its peak

Hurricane-battered residents of the Caribbean, Florida and Alabama are facing another 10 or 20 bad years of high hurricane activity - and it's not due to global warming.

Hurricanes have been on the increase over the past decade as part of a natural multi-decadal cycle (New Scientist, 27 September 2003, p 14). Hurricanes are more likely to form when the Atlantic is warm, as it was in the 1930s to 1960s. The decades since the 1960s saw fewer hurricanes, but numbers have risen since 1995 and may not have reached the predicted peak yet.

This hurricane season has received more attention mainly because many hurricanes over the past few years have failed to make landfall in the US. "Look at the Caribbean and it's a different story," says Alberto Mestas-Nunez from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami.

Greg: This is why it pays to pay attention to the matter at hand.

The issue isn't whether there will be more or fewer hurricanes due to global warming--there isn't consensus on that. The issue is that global warming will cause hurricanes to be of greater intensity and duration.

Reading is your friend.

Thanks for your post, Greg.

You gave context to Jade's post and therewith showed the danger of knowing just a few facts.

In general, one cannot draw conclusions from isolated facts as Jade has done. Besides, even if one has the whole picture, drawing correct conclusions from them is rarely possible without intimate long term knowledge of the subject.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

The issue isn't whether there will be more or fewer hurricanes due to global warming--there isn't consensus on that. The issue is that global warming will cause hurricanes to be of greater intensity and duration.

Please do not pretend to be ignorant of what you post when you are embarrased by other facts.

Your post clearly read: "According to the Los Angeles Times, "Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [In August], "

I for one would not let that slide.

The matter of hurricanes becoming more intense is a possibility, as is perhaps the world being destroyed by a comet.

Will,

"...no emotional argument was ever won with reason or logic."

This is exactly why non-technicians "shouldn't get all hot and wet" when reading a technicians opinion. They tend to not hear the import of what there saying, but rather get distracted by their own data.

How can you possibly expect an intelligent person to take what you say seriously when you pepper your explanations with thoughtless absurdities like this? Your making this grandiose assertion at the close of your remarks left me completely unable to have confidence in anything you said. If I can see plainly that you are sloppy in things I do understand, how am I to trust you on things I'm trying to get a grasp of?

John, I would say that Ben is on point. Earlier this month, I believe it was the National Academy of Science reviewed the highly politicized "Hockey Stick Graph" and came to two conclusions.

1) That the basic science behind the second part of the graph, that later than 1600 AD is with boundaries of science.

2) That the portion of the graph prior to 1600 AD is without scientific merit.

In short, we can debate the data for the last 400 years, but prior to that there is little science to speak of that is of relevance to the Global Warming debate.

What is of most importance now is that Michael Mann, the author of the graph share his data with the scientific community.

Until his data is readily available, it has the worth of data purporting to support cold-fusion.

As for the graph itself, both ends of the graph are highly speculative and high political. Mr. Mann's graphy spikes sharply on the right according to a modeling based on science that Mr. Mann is not an expert. In short, Mann is a researcher, not modeler.

I've been living in California for more than 10 years...the weather here has been CHANGING without a doubt. We just had a heat wave that destroyed 1% of our livestock and also killed over a 100 people (more people than killed in the Northridge Earthquake).

You can sit here and deny facts all you want, but the fact is, pollution has SOME effect on the environment. It'd be just plain stupid to insist that it does nothing. When you mess with an ecosystem in any way, the ecosystem will adjust. It's plain and simple logic and you don't need to have a science degree to see the obvious.

Sign me,
Stephanie
Author, Shameless Link to My Blog Because I'm Smarter Than All of You

So Stephanie, when it gets cold will you be harping on about the impending Global Freeze?

Just 30 years ago, the chronically hysteric chattering classes who now wring their wrists over Global Warming were predicting the great global freeze.

New York Times the Worst: Longtime readers of the Times could easily recall the paper claiming "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," along with its strong support of current global warming predictions. Older readers might well recall two other claims of a climate shift back to the 1800s – one an ice age and the other warming again. The Times has warned of four separate climate changes since 1895.


The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
-- The Clash
"London Calling,"
released in 1979

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to "get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come," in an article titled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age." The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said "there's no relief in sight" about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed," Fortune announced in February 1974.

Greg, I never heard of "the hockey stick" before today. I was only commenting on will's ludicrous assertion, and it's harmful effect on his credibility. I actually read his comments with great care because he flashed some decent credential, but after wincing through some questionable remarks, that all knowing crap at the end broke my camel's back.

John, that was my mistake, I confused Ben and Will.

Rereading Will's comments, I come away with the impression that Will is speaking to the hazards of non-technicians getting into a technical debate.

The controversy behind the "hockey-stick" graph is that the credible portion of the graph says little but the political sections of the graph are highly speculative and feed the angst of people who do not know better.

When people like Mr. Mann get into technical arguments about data, they will argue ONLY in the regions of the graph that scientifically viable.

The boring, non-dramatic part.

Greg, I'm fairly familiar with the scientific aspect, I don't watch the politico "issue" part very much. That's why will's casual attitude about the truth frustrated me. It just ain't polite to flash your credentials, and then think you have no obligation to be careful in your thinking.

Your post clearly read: "According to the Los Angeles Times, "Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [In August], "

Yes, it did, Greg. It also said this:

NOAA simulations indicate that global warming over the next 80 years could increase hurricane wind speeds an average of five to 10 percent, which means a jump of half a category in hurricane-intensity measurement.

Since what was being discussed was NOAA's stance on global warming and its impact on hurricanes--Benji stating quite falsely that NOAA believed there was no correlation---this part is the operative issue.

And in a following comment, I took an excerpt from NOAA's website that says the same thing.

Gotta stop being ignorant, Greg--you're letting down your side.

BTW, here's what Al Gore says:

Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

My emphasis added.

Here is what NOAA says:

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

Very similar statements--proving once again, Benji has difficulty telling the truth and Greg just has difficulty reading.

"So Stephanie, when it gets cold will you be harping on about the impending Global Freeze?"

Some believe that global warming could trigger a new ice age due to the changes in Gulf Stream temps...see "The Day After Tomorrow" for an admittedly overblown movie version of this scenario.

Stephanie wrote -

"You can sit here and deny facts all you want, but the fact is, pollution has SOME effect on the environment. It'd be just plain stupid to insist that it does nothing. When you mess with an ecosystem in any way, the ecosystem will adjust. It's plain and simple logic and you don't need to have a science degree to see the obvious."

Who's denying your facts, Stephanie? No one doubts that pollution can significantly affect an ecosystem. But we have not been discussing an ecosystem, a collection of living things and the enironment in which they live. We have been discussing the climate which is far, far more complex than an ecosystem.

In fact, our climate is so complex that we have been unable to understand it or predict it.

Is it a very warm hot summer in the U.S.? Yes, that is a fact. We are apparently setting a new high for the record book.

But does that somehow prove that human actions have caused global warming? No, No, a thousand times no.

As I said before, isolated facts can be used to justify any belief you care to have about anything as Stephanie has just done several times. But without all the facts AND enough experience in the field to judge them, your conclusions have no chance of being valid.

I am sure that Stephanie as a Reiki Master would not like it if with my lack of experience and expertise in Reiki I chose to condemn Reiki on the basis of something I have observed. I would bet that she would think me a kook and she would be right.

There is much wisdom to the old saying that "opinions are a dime a dozen".

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season.

Thanks Jade, that was my point exactly.

Sure it was, Greg. How swiftly you change course if the face of prevailing winds and seas.

If that is what you need to believe to keep off your meds; go for it, grrrl.

"If that is what you need to believe to keep off your meds; go for it, grrrl."

someone was saying something earlier about having the maturity of a teen....?

......

bensimon - rhetoric.

refutation.

Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.

"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can't even begin to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "There's too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes "may be undergoing change." "Uncertainty" becomes "significant remaining uncertainty." One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."

Ben

On Global Warming - A question.

At what point in your life did you accept that smoking causes cancer?

Gene, I forget exactly. It was either in the late '60s or early '70s, about the same time as I realized that asbestos insulation on ships was a significant hazard. I stopped smoking at about the same time, but restarted after a year or so, quit again a few years later, restarted again in '83 and quit for good in '85.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"