Bush on Kyoto

[Orwell]

I thought you'd read through it, and see the data, my mistake.

http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

The article you linked dates from 1998. Also, I have no idea if it was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Finally, the main thesis of the article (i.e. that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature and that predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge) is in flagrant contradiction with what many scientists have written in loads of peer reviewed publications since then. It also contradicts the position on global warming adopted by all major scientific organisations in the US and elsewhere.

Look, you can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree. But as far as I know, right now, the controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and among climate researchers, there is little controversy about global warming! This might change one day, if compelling evidence against global warming and its effects comes up. If this happens (I doubt it), I'll probably recant. For the time being, I think there is no such evidence.

As I said before: if global warming is for real, and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We'll need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming.

 

[Grammatron]

I don't have to agree with everything AUP says.

Now, from my link:



Your tables are interesting, but they don't address what's on this quote.

Of course they do, what do you think the category 5, 4, 3, etc. is meant to cover?

 

[Grammatron]

I think we should err on the side of caution. We'll need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming.

Great, so let's err on the side of caution and not spend too much money on this.

 

[MarksSock]

Great, so let's err on the side of caution and not spend too much money on this.

That is your idea of erring on the side of caution regarding something that could affect the future of our species?!?!?!

 

[Orwell]

Great, so let's err on the side of caution and not spend too much money on this.

It seems that, to you, erring on the side of caution means not doing much. It seems to me that the possible negative consequences of doing little or nothing to counteract global warming are potentially greater than the consequences of doing something about it. Most climate scientists say we should be decreasing carbon emissions. That's what I think we should be doing.

 

[Orwell]

Of course they do, what do you think the category 5, 4, 3, etc. is meant to cover?

No. It is true that the tables give hurricane intensities, damages and other historical information on hurricanes but... For instance, the tables detailing damage don't take into account increasing human habitation densities in the places affected nor the fact that warning procedures and construction rules have changed. In these tables, damage figures are not adjusted for inflation (check the main page). Also, the closest I've seen to an objective measure of hurricane strength is a number detailing hurricane category (you mentioned this) and atmospheric pressure measurements, but I haven't seen any table making statistical comparisons between today and the past. Those tables are, I think, essentially raw data. Therefore, none of them are directly relevant to this quote:

However, hurricane intensity and rainfall have been increasing consistently. For instance, the total precipitation from hurricanes hitting the US rose by about 7 per cent over the course of the 20th century. This is because the sea-surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content have been increasing as the world warms, and both provide the energy to fuel hurricanes, writes Trenberth.

According to the New Scientist article I linked above, this Trenberth guy is Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and the quote is from Science, vol 308, p 1753. I'm willing to bet you that if you take the data on those tables and analyse it, it will probably substantiate what this scientist is saying.

 

[a_unique_person]

Aside from the fact your own link contradicts AUPs statement. Here's the data from last 100 years for you.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm

And the data with most and least hurricanes per year.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table7.jpg

The claim was what was made on CNN, as linked. There has never been this many named storms this early in the hurricane season.

 

[a_unique_person]

Great, so let's err on the side of caution and not spend too much money on this.

That seems to me to always be the priority for some, money. I believe we should have other priorities.

 

[Grammatron]

That seems to me to always be the priority for some, money. I believe we should have other priorities.

Yeah, well I use money for things like food and shelter, so yeah, priority.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, well I use money for things like food and shelter, so yeah, priority.

The priorities are the externalities that the economy depends on. The economy depends on the planet, not vice versa.

 

[Grammatron]

The claim was what was made on CNN, as linked. There has never been this many named storms this early in the hurricane season.

Which means exactly nothing.

Read my links.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which means exactly nothing.

Read my links.

I did. They confirm my point. The years that had little hurrican activity are many decades ago. The time when there are more storms per year tends to be the more recent years.

 

[Grammatron]

The priorities are the externalities that the economy depends on. The economy depends on the planet, not vice versa.

If you are out of job because of these protocols and regulations you're not going to care that your grand children might enjoy certain coastal communities a bit longer.....maybe...not quite sure on that.

 

[a_unique_person]

If you are out of job because of these protocols and regulations you're not going to care that your grand children might enjoy certain coastal communities a bit longer.....maybe...not quite sure on that.

It is well documented now that much of the wealth we have contributes nothing to our well being. Beyond a certain level of wealth, we are no happier, nor healthy.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, the closest I've seen to an objective measure of hurricane strength is a number detailing hurricane category (you mentioned this) and atmospheric pressure measurements, but I haven't seen any table making statistical comparisons between today and the past.

Perhaps you didn't read my link, then. So I'll put the table up for you, since you won't read my link:

This is from the same UN agency you were quoting before, the World Meteorological Organization.

 

[Orwell]

Really? Then I'd like you to link me directly to it, since it might be a good idea if I take a look at it.

I need to know where the graph comes from and where the data comes from. Does it include all of the 90s? Exactly how old is that graph? Does it date from the 1990s, like the rest of the WMO stuff you were quoting? If it does, can't you find anything more recent to back you up? I mean, this quote:

However, hurricane intensity and rainfall have been increasing consistently. For instance, the total precipitation from hurricanes hitting the US rose by about 7 per cent over the course of the 20th century. This is because the sea-surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content have been increasing as the world warms, and both provide the energy to fuel hurricanes, writes Trenberth.

refers to an article that was published this year (science volume 308 April 2005) and it seems, at a first glance, to contradict what's on that graph!

By the way, I am not going to bother to read very attentively something on Global Warming that is almost a decade old!

 

[Orwell]

Never mind, I've found the link and the graph: it's something that was published in 1997. Not exactly up to date. You shouldn't be basing your arguments against Global Warming on data that is almost a decade old! By the way, if you visit the library from where that graph came from, you will find many articles that accept the reality of global warming and climate change.

 

[Orwell]

Global Warming May Play Role in Hurricane Intensity

Hurricanes and climate change: Is there a connection? (from October 2004)

 

[Grammatron]

It is well documented now that much of the wealth we have contributes nothing to our well being. Beyond a certain level of wealth, we are no happier, nor healthy.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, except that number, at least in USA, is a yearly income of $200K beyond that everyone is just as happy.

Of course, my point is simple is that anything that negatively impacts economy will impact jobs and people and people can't live on happiness.

 

[BobK]

Here's some of what one of the world experts on hurricanes had to say in an open letter about his resignation from IPCC earlier this year.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

Chris Landsea letter
My bold.
Sounds to me like Trenberth is promoting is own agenda rather than what the record says, and what IPCC actually concluded.