Scientists forecast a storm from climate change »
Posted by: ameliog 5 months agoThis year alone two maximum strength hurricanes passed over the Yucatan peninsula, while extreme floods in the Tabasco and Chiapas regions in October affected half of the region's 2.2 million inhabitants and drew comparisons with the havoc created in the U.S. by Hurricane Katrina.
Read Full Story at edition.cnn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 54
-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
I guess CNN didn't do the research or ignored it all together. THe North Atlantic is cooling. NASA satellites have provided evidence that the chilling effect of dust was responsible for one-third of the drop in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures between June 2005 and 2006, possibly contributing to the difference in hurricane activity between the two seasons.
Heat from warm ocean surfaces is known to fuel hurricanes, leading to stronger and more frequent storms. During the hurricane season of 2006, however, sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic remained relatively cool and the season saw only five hurricanes, compared to 15 hurricanes in 2005 when the ocean surface was warmer.
"The 2007 hurricane season appears to be another one in which forecasts for an above normal hurricane season have failed," Lau says.
Source: Kathryn Hansen - Goddard Space Flight Center
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months ago
Comparison of changes in SSTs on the North Icelandic Shelf with variations in the atmospheric circulation above Greenland, North American Atlantic coastal SSTs, and mean temperature anomalies for the Northern Hemisphere suggests synchronous North Atlanticâ;;wide fluctuations, which would seem to imply a common forcing factor. A positive and significant correlation between our SST record from the North Icelandic Shelf and reconstructed solar irradiance, together with modeling results, supports the hypothesis that solar forcing is an important constituent of natural climate variability in the northern North Atlantic region.
Key Words: sea-surface temperature * solar forcing * diatoms * North Icelandic Shelf * Little Ice Age
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed5 months ago
ameliog -- aren't you the poster who cry to anyone not in lockstep with the human-induced global warming crowd that their article or opinions don't count at all because they're not peer-reviewed?
((Dr Trenberth believes that the increasing intensity of hurricanes will conversely result in less storms per year --)) -yet we're supposed to take the word of this article that didn't even bother to get an editor familiar with proper usage in the English language? (that should be fewer, not less-- things that can be counted and number get "fewer", bulk things get "less", example -- less flour, but fewer bags of flour.)
And, we have NO idea if the strength of storms or even the number of storms is really greater than it has been historically, or if we are just leaving a period of storm lull. Until the advent of satellites, many hurricanes may have been missed -- if they didn't make landfall, and if they didn't hit any ships (who survived) they didn't exist.
Reply-
0%
ameliog5 months ago
"aren't you the poster who cry to anyone not in lockstep with the human-induced global warming crowd that their article or opinions don't count at all because they're not peer-reviewed?"
Maybe. Although I'll step way out on a limb and speculate that there might be other perspective. Still, I like the way the question was framed. Thanks for asking.
Good catch on the grammar/word choice in the article too. I can relate to that problem (poor grammar or wording), having labored under it for most of my life.
Reply -
-
0%
amazed5 months ago
"the poster who cries to anyone" is correct in this case, because there is a poster (I think it's ameliog, but maybe not) who comes on to the skeptic sites and no matter what anyone posts that he disagrees with he just keeps dismissing it and demanding peer reviewed articles only.
"the poster who would cry to anyone" implies that perhaps it will happen in the future, but is not ongoing or something that happened in the past.
But, ameliog and owebefree, nice sidestepping of the actual point of my comment.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
saintetienne5 months ago
"This just in: the Global Warming Hysteria Committee has postponed further hysterical news releases until North America digs out from under the snow."
The Global Warming Hysteria Committee! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's funny....
Isn't this the same group that used to be known as the Retreat and Surrender Caucus? I think Nancy Pelosi is their mole Queen.
Reply
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months ago
Anecdotal "evidence" contrary to global warming theory is routinely rejected, but anecdotal "evidence" which supports global warming theory is welcomed. Surely I am not the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that?
Incidentally, there has been no convincing argument that "global warming" is in any way responsible for government corruption and official ineptitude in Tabasco, in New Orleans, or at any other particular location. In sum, the article is an odd assortment of garbage.
Reply-
0%
vettenut5 months ago
Absolutely right, 1-2-O!!!!
It's high time the CNN folks received critical analysis, not a "free pass," concerning their (lack of) credibility and (not-so-hidden) political and cultural bias.
But beyond that--
Manipulation of anecdotal evidence is found on all sides of this topic, but especially so among the "True Believers."
When it's warmer anywhere, that supports Anthropogenic Glow Bull Worming!
When it's cooler anywhere, that supports Anthropogenic Glow Bull Worming!
HOWEVER, the real question is:
Is there indeed a relationship between extreme sunlight exposure (upon the heads of the IPCC and other Glow Bull Worming True Believers who meet in tropical locations with lots of high-priced golf courses) and their speculative, punitive and questionably-produced "predictions....."
I'm not so sure that they're "half-baked" at all--perhaps they're actually "very well done" in the culinary sense of the term....
LOL!!!
Reply
-
-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
""""The IPCC stated in Climate Change 1995 that "forcing due to changes in the Sun's output over the past century has been considerably smaller than anthropogenic forcing." Estimates shown in a figure allotted about 10% to solar forcing and 90% to forcing due to human greenhouse gas contributions. IPCC's draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR 2000) continues attributing to the Sun a minor role in climate change.
Reply -
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
According to the expert review "the temporal evolution indicates that the net natural forcing (solar and volcanic aerosol) has been negative over the past two and possibly even the past four decades." The estimate of solar forcing remains the same as in Climate Change 1995: It is "considerably smaller than the anthropogenic radiative forcings", and its "level of scientific understanding" is "very low", whereas forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases "continues to enjoy the highest confidence level" as to its scientific understanding. Everything taken together, TAR 2000 considers it "unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of this century."
Conforming assertions are to be found in the peer reviewed literature (e.g. Tett et al., Nature 399 (1999), 569-572; Fröhlich and Lean, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (1998), 4377-4380)"""
-Dr Theodor Landscheidt
Reply -
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
As to those who will state the historically normal weather-
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.-NOAA-NCDC
Reply-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
So one might use ones Knob and realize that we are actually experiencing a winter closer to normal as opposed to one that is unusually cold.
To have a rudimentary grasp of changing climate one would have to understand fluctuation as a normal occurrence.
I mean didn't any of you doubter folks learn about convection currents as a kid in science class?
That's why many folks refer to this as Global Climate Change and avoid the moniker "warming". Even if, technically, the average, mean temperature of the Earth is, quite verifiably, warming.
Just like the sun hitting a half full bottle of water the water vapor created by the warming of the air and water within the bottle creates condensation that could be measured as cooler than the surrounding air or the surface of the bottle.
Simple, like that.
If ya can't see that in your minds eye, more's the pity.
Reply-
0%
Isoparm5 months ago
I agree. Also, its become clear that many climate change skeptics don't even know the difference between heat and temperature. But, there are some people who won't let a little thing like lack of understanding of a subject, get in the way with passing judgment on its validity.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
Further as someone who has lived in the same area for many years and who's profession gives me a great deal of field time, actually outside, not in a car or truck, tractor or other controlled environment, it is quite obvious to me that its a lot hotter, that the monsoons typical to my area are coming later. That Deer and Elk seasons are way hotter and drier than myself or any of the old timers can remember. That Spring weather comes on sooner and stronger. We've had decent snow pack here this winter, however the rate of its melt has already become apparent whereas historically spring melt off would not have been very obvious until May.
Now that's worrisome for any one in the intermountain west.
Reply -
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
I guess for me its like this
A) Regardless of the contribution of "Solar Forcing" or otherwise the average mean temperature of the Earth is, indeed, warming.
B) Now that's more'n'likely gonn'a really, really suck for our children. It might not, who knows but
C) If it does really, really suck, well than its really gonna suck, que no? therefor
D) We can accept that, even if, dumping monster amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is not, in and of itself, the CAUSE of Global Climate Change it, sure as shootin', is not helping AND is verrifiably not allowing the surface of the Earth to cool.
So
E) We can do nothing and perhaps be hated by our progeny, or
F) We can not give more than $200 million to the same jerks that have stalled our economy and not give $3 trillion for an illegal war and instead pump it directly and diversely into the immediate American Economy with New technologies that get off sucking Osama's tit.
Reply -
0%
Cityslicker5 months ago
I to am outside a lot and have not really noticed anything out of the normal Climate , I believe that some may feel a difference but that could be psychosomatic "power of suggestion" not actual circumstances .
Nature seems no more or less different , animals , trees , flowers all seem normal .
Seems man has been trying to change the Climate for years , back in the 70's the Government did "Cloud Seeding" to produce rain because there were droughts (Gullible Warning) , think they gave up on that though .
Point is , we mankind can not alter the Climate at will if we could don't you think some devious twisted mind would have tried to use it for profit , oh wait , Al Gore .
Keep your stick on the ice !
Reply-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
Do you live in a city as your "handle" suggests?
If so that may have a bit to do with that.
Out here there aren't very many folks who would say that things are hunkey-dory.
I mean, this has been measured.
For myself it was 1988 that it all came into sharp focus, that was the last year I could run around without a shirt or hat on. Now I reckon as one ages ones skin may become more susceptible to burning etc, but I was 26 and in robust health. This was long before Global Climate change was a household word and I don't reckon I could give myself a psychosomatic sunburn.
'Nother point would be that this occurrence is not one of lackadaisical temporary attempts at meddling with things but the cumulative of more than a century of habit and practice.
Reply -
0%
Isoparm5 months ago
The net loss of global ice mass is not psychosomatic. This is an obvious means of gauging trends in any changes in the earth's heat balance. Nations (including the U.S.)are already fighting over mineral rights of the arctic sea floor as the melting ice cap makes accessibility more feasible. A shipping concern recently decided to invest 10 billion dollars toward the development of new shipping routes through the Arctic ocean. Nations and powerful organizations with lots of money believe that changes are occurring, and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Would you be willing to bet against them?
Reply
-
-
0%
Cityslicker5 months ago
The sun burning was from the Ozone layer , remember that scam , that is why your skin burned .But the Ozone is fine now seeing the data used to predict it was found to be flawed .
Standing in 3 feet of snow , freezing to death and still believe in Gullible Warning .
Gullible Warning caused the bad Winters , deduction , cold water from the melting Ice Caps cooled the Oceans and caused the colder weather , Gullible Warning causes Global Cooling .
I'll take that bet !
Seed some clouds , and make rain !
Keep your stick on the ice !
Reply-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
You must be either quite young or extremely short memoried.
As stated above the average winter temperature this time around is significantly higher (note that any scientist would consider 0.2F is significant) than the last centuries average (note that the "year without summer" was in 1816 ((Tambora)) and the effects of Krakatua/Krakatoa were in 1883/84 and therefor not a subject to these data).
To live in a city, regardless if you are outside every day, is to not live in a "natural" environment. The sheer mass of concrete, the shading of buildings etc, act to create a microcosmic climate within a city.
Don't reckon you've ever stared down into the face of a full blown forest fire. Most smoke eaters are good ol' country boys who don't give much of a darn about politics and the like, 'ceptin they do tend to the conservative but let me tell you, ain't many folks "on the line" for a number of years who don't believe in it.
Reply-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
ANd so, yes, it does stand to reason that given the anecdotal descriptions that this winter is harder than the average winter, of late, and that statistically it is actually warmer, only stands to prove that we are indeed in a time when temperatures are increasing, on a general curve. If they were not we would not recognize this statistically warmer, over the last century, winter as colder than the current norm.
And again, if the supporters of the concept of Global Climate Change are correct and we stop importing so damn much foreign oil, provide for the economic development of new technologies, what have we lost if folks like me are wrong?
I despise the likes of Bin Laden and his ilk. I can not understand the "conservative" juxtaposition of denying GCC while at the same time screaming at the Middle East. As long as we buy oil from there those nasty little kings will give their money to the Osamas of this world.
Reply
-
-
0%
Isoparm5 months ago
Fine. Now I challenge you to confront all the governments, and private interests who are investing in the clearing water ways in the Arctic, and tell all of them you're right, and they're wrong. Then report back, and tell us what they think of your opinions. Of course, you won't do this, as that means putting your money where your mouth (keyboard?) is.
It's quite clear that you don't have the faintest understanding of the science involved. If you feel so strongly about this subject, why don't you take the time to learn it? There are tons of physics and chemistry texts for you to choose from. Don't forget fluid dynamics!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Isoparm5 months ago
This is what you see from increased convection activity. When heat can't radiate as efficiently as before, then convective behavior increases. This means increased air circulation, which leads to increased air turbulence, which means more, and more powerful storms. It takes a tremendous amount heat energy to move those cold air masses. They can't move by themselves.
And you're right. It will get worse.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
As someone who is convinced that GCC is the result of human activity and is our most clear and present danger, I will agree that its pretty darn stupid to make all kinds of specific predictions. Tends to make rational science based logic sound a bit Pat Robertsonish when he talks about what god told was going to happen.
There is no way to plug enough data into a super computer to come up with stable model predictions, the planetary system is just too complex.
Reply -
0%
foksipayne5 months ago
TANG
From what I remember, the increase did not happen during the normal hurricane season, in fact the season did not even see an average amount of hurricanes. But after the regular season was over we saw a lot of rotation activity, both hurricanes and tropical storms, that was NOT NORMAL for the time of year.
Reply
-
-
0%
Redneck5 months ago
At it again, blaming the weather on man!! We have tried for centuries to effect the weather and now we have finally done it without trying!!!!!!! LOL
Reply -
0%
cwebefree5 months ago
Just as I utilize the records of surveyors going back as far as I can get them, or that Stephen Pyne researches the history of forest fires to prove his theses, I rest assured that any researcher/scientist worth his salt will do the same to strengthen his hypothesis.
Reply
Submitted By:
ameliog
Hmmm. How did you find me? I specifically requested an unlisted profile. While my attorneys look into this egregious matter, I will go play golf ...
Also submitted:
- 5.0 - Petraeus Book 'Endorsement' Draws Fire
- 1.0 - Afghan civilians said killed in US-led air raid
- 4.9 - Global warming pushes Peru to pick coffee earlier
- 4.4 - Amish Population Booming, Study Finds
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
TimALoftis
capn_caveman
MidnightPrism
Debbie
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley- eugenegerard
Ratskii
ameliog
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
