Hurricane Wilma has now tied the 1935 Florida Keys hurricane for the second-most intense hurricane in the recorded history of the Atlantic basin:
DATA FROM A RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT HURRICANE WILMA HAS BECOME AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY FIVE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. THE RECONNAISSANCE PLANE MEASURED 175 MPH WINDS AND ESTIMATED A MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 892 MB. THIS IS THE LOWEST PRESSURE OBSERVED IN 2005 AND IS EQUIVALENT TO THE MINIMUM PRESSURE OF THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE IN THE FLORIDA KEYS.
Another 90 minutes, another 9-millibar drop. Five more millibars of intensification, and Wilma will surpass Hurricane Gilbert’s all-time record for lowest pressure ever recorded in the Atlantic basin (888 mb).
Wilma’s eye is just two miles wide, so an eyewall replacement cycle seems almost certain to begin soon. But will she surpass Gilbert’s all-time record low pressure before she peaks and the weakening begins?
P.S. This is the first time in recorded history that three Category 5 hurricanes have formed in the same season in the Atlantic basin — and they were all in the Western Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico within the space of less than two months!
|
Categories: Hurricane Wilma & T.S. Alpha
|
October 19th, 2005 at 3:50:45 am
Amazing
October 19th, 2005 at 3:57:15 am
Okay, it’s obvious that we’re in the middle of an intensified storm season which is part of a naturally-occurring cycle. But is it all that implausible, now, to speculate that one possible contributing cause is also global warming? Surface sea temperatures have risen almost 1 degree F in the last 35 years…
October 19th, 2005 at 5:04:35 am
Brendan was right about this storm having the potential to beat Glibert’s record. The latest VORTEX (recon) report data has the central pressure at 884 mb, setting the record for the most intense Atlantic storm. (Gilbert was 888).
This, if my rusty memory serves, would also make three of the top 5 hurricanes on record occuring in the same season, within two months.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:26:16 am
884 MB… maybe, or maybe not, says the NHC. Helpful.
THIS IS
PROBABLY THE LOWEST MINIMUM PRESSURE EVER OBSERVED IN THE ATLANTIC
BASIN AND IS FOLLOWED BY THE 888 MB MINIMUM PRESSURE ASSOCIATED
WITH HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988. HOWEVER…ONE MUST BE VERY CAREFUL
BEFORE IT IS DECLARED A RECORD MINIMUM PRESSURE UNTIL A FULL AND
DETAILED CALIBRATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS AND CALCULATIONS IS
PERFORMED. SO PLEASE DO NOT JUMP INTO CONCLUSIONS YET…BE PATIENT.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:37:25 am
Shiiiittttt.
That is one bad mutha.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:15:06 am
synthetic zero, this is no time to be talking about global warming. Tsk tsk.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:41:11 am
884 mb….this is a monster. Scary.
———
Hi. My name is Wilma. Any more Flintstones jokes, and I’ll blow you BACK to the Stone Age….
October 19th, 2005 at 7:31:23 am
Holy Crap! Was NHC even predicting a Cat 5 for this storm yesterday? I don’t think so. I think they had it getting up to a 3. If I were in Southern Florida, I would start evacuating now. Forget any friggin’ orders.
October 19th, 2005 at 8:14:25 am
where is landfall expected, Naples, Sanibel, Port Charlotte?
October 19th, 2005 at 8:23:15 am
Landfall projection from NHC:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/084935.shtml?5day
Computer models (very close this time)
http://maps.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200524_model.html
Note one carries it right into Cape Cod in Mass later in the storm’s life…
October 19th, 2005 at 8:40:49 am
“BASED ON DROPSONDE AND FLIGHT-LEVEL DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE PLANE
JUST RETURNING FROM ITS MISSION IN WILMA…THE MINIMUM CENTRAL
PRESSURE IS ESTIMATED TO BE 882 MB…26.05 INCHES. THIS IS THE
LOWEST PRESSURE ON RECORD FOR A HURRICANE IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN.”
‘Tis the season of shattered records.
October 19th, 2005 at 8:44:24 am
SW FL went over 40 years between hurricanes ans now it appears they will be slammed in back to back years
October 19th, 2005 at 9:00:09 am
Hey, Brendan… Do you think it’s appropriate to go back to the headline on this story and put it as second-strongest
now?
October 19th, 2005 at 9:04:32 am
Wonder if it will mess up any football games this weekend in Floriada.
I mean, let’s keep our priorities straight here…
October 19th, 2005 at 9:08:08 am
hi guys…
looks like the data is confirmed by the aircraft crew.
from 8AM advisory
…WILMA MAINTAINING CATEGORY FIVE STATUS…RECORD PRESSURE
CONFIRMED BY AIRCRAFT CREW…
…REPEATING THE 8 AM EDT POSITION…17.2 N… 82.8 W. MOVEMENT
TOWARD…WEST-NORTHWEST NEAR 8 MPH. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…175
MPH. MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE… 882 MB….
October 19th, 2005 at 9:15:18 am
Just remember all you pro-business right wingers who want to deny any human influence on Mother Nature: MOTHER NATURE ALWAYS BATS LAST!
October 19th, 2005 at 9:18:38 am
Tzar…is there an echo in here?
October 19th, 2005 at 9:19:06 am
Tap the breaks on the global warning thingy. I may be off base here, but has anyone done a comparison of Pacific and Indian Ocean storms to see if they are strenghtening or increasing in quantity?
Sure, the ones in the Atlantic may be stronger and act strangely, but that is hardly evidence of any GLOBAL phenomenom.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:24:40 am
1) How many times do you guys have to be told that the current season of hurricanes is part of a naturally occurring cycle. This includes the rise in ocean temps. In fact, at one point in recorded history, the ocean warmed up so much it interrupted the gulf stream and produced a mini ice age in Europe.
2) The recorded history of hurricanes on the gulf coast is in it’s infancy. To postulate global warming based on it is idiotic.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:28:06 am
This is the first time in recorded history that three Category 5 hurricanes have formed in the same season in the Atlantic basin …
Have there been three or more in one season somewhere else??
Just curious.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:39:38 am
Oh, crap, the Chiefs are supposed to play the Dolphins in Miami at 1PM ET on Sunday. I’m thinking that one might have to be made up Monday (and possibly moved to a different venue? I guess they could come up here instead, kind of like the Saints did for their ‘home opener’ in the Meadowlands.)
October 19th, 2005 at 9:42:13 am
While it may be foolish to attribute increased hurricane behavior to global warming, if we are to expect more extreme weather (especially in coastal areas) due to global warming, this is a good focus point, no? That is, “hey, look at all this extreme weather! Isn’t it catastrophic and expensive? Gee, maybe we should pay attention to global warming or it might be like this all the time!” :)
October 19th, 2005 at 9:46:37 am
C’mon guys, if a few years of data points from an area comprising a tiny portion of the Earth’s surface isn’t indicative of weather trends for the entire planet over a vast time period far exceeding that of our tiny little lives, than nothing is.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:50:38 am
While there is considerable disagreement within the scientific community, there is nothing “idiotic” about the hypothesis. The “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is a naturally occurring cycle — but the current upswing in sea surface temperatures appears to be well outside the range of any past such oscillations, as noted in Emanuel’s recent study published in Nature. Further, his study shows that the intensity of hurricanes is more heavily forced by rising sea surface temperatures than GCM models predict. Of course it’s too early to come to definitive conclusions, but as this balanced article suggests:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
it appears very plausible that we’re currently seeing an upswing in which the contribution from the natural AMO cycle and from global warming are about equal — in other words, we’re currently seeing about double the effect we would have seen without global warming.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:52:46 am
Based on my observations, the globe warms everyday starting at about 7:00 AM. It then mysteriously cools off 20-25 degrees F starting at about 7:00 PM.
I surmise that this is caused by vehicular traffic which increase rapidly during the AM phase and then decrease by a like amount during the evening phase.
I could be wrong though.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:55:35 am
Wilma was just confirmed as the most intense hurricane every, with a minimum pressure of 882 millibars, as per the comcast.net front page. Does anyone else think that her predicted track at nhc.com looks incredibly strange, with that wacky right hand turn? Especially since she’s supposed to be going north-northwest strongly?
October 19th, 2005 at 10:01:02 am
Oh yes, Texican, scientists are really, really, dumb. Ha, ha, ha. Boy, I bet in Texico they really laugh it up at the expense of all the stupid “scientistas” out there who can’t tell their foot from their elbow. Better get out there and eduhcate them about how to do proper serial correlation analysis.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:04:54 am
Texican,
Weather is both a global AND a local phenomenon. (Not telling tou something you don’t know…) So local changes may be the result of a change in the overall (global) system. The changes do not need to be the same kinds of changes everywhere for the changes to be evidence of an overall change in the system. A good example is that as a result of global WARMING Europe’s winters may actually get colder and snowier. So the increases in storm strength and number in the Atlantic Region need not be matched by a corresponding and equal change in the Pacific region. Some areas of America will experience greater rain and some will suffer drought. Not a contradiction in terms of both being evidence of GLOBAL warming….
.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:09:05 am
Synthetic Zero,
BTW, it’s edumicate, not eduhcate. But I won’t pick nits.
I did not post that to make fun of “stupid” scientists. The reason I posted was to point out the problem in dealing with anecdotal evidence.
To say that incresed Atlantic hurricane activity and intensity is a symptom of global warning is ludicrous. It is nothing more than a slightly edumicated guess at best.
Recorded records are just that…recorded. They don’t mean that they are the stongest ever, just the strongest in the last 70 or so years. Out of apporximately 4 BILLION years of this rocks existence.
For someone to say that x causes y in that scenario is Olympic level conclusion jumping.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:21:15 am
Yes, it would be ludicrous, if that’s actually what scientists were saying. But it isn’t. What is ill-considered about your joke is the assumption that scientists claiming that there may be a strong contribution from global warming are doing so based on anecdotal evidence. Do you really think that Nature is so completely lacking in peer review that they’d publish a study suggesting this if there weren’t stronger evidence than this? Puh-leeze.
The hypothesis that global warming may well be a strong contributor to the current intensity of hurricanes is not based on “anecdotal evidence” of the beyond dumb type you lampoon above, but rather based on a careful statistical analysis of trends going back many decades. As I noted above, the intensity of hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basin has been increasing and decreasing in a tightly coupled way with changes in sea surface temperatures. Further, the recent changes in SSTs appear to be far outside the natural AMO cycle as I noted above.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:21:21 am
Texican,
You’re wrong when you say “…To say that incresed Atlantic hurricane activity and intensity is a symptom of global warning is ludicrous. It is nothing more than a slightly edumicated guess at best.”
I’ll tell you why. they had a professor of climatology, I forget from which institution, on CNN discussing storm strength and water temperatures. Water temperatures are clearly afftcted by global warming. He showed a plot of Katrina’s path before she made landfall. The plot was laid over a temperature image of the Gulf of Mexico’s waters. Katrina followed along the warmest waters near her. The professor talked about how the warm waters act like a magnet for the storms. The energy of the warm watyers acts like a slingshot and shoots the storms onto land, thus increasing their speed and intensity just before or just as they make landfall.
The connection is simple kinectic energy generated by increased water temperatures which are clearly affected by increased global warming. This is hardly an “educated guess.”
I propose more science education in Texas.
.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:34:44 am
Synthetic Zero
You proved my point. The information gleaned was based on “decades” of research. That is a very small amount of time compared to actual(not just recorded) history. So they can say truthfully that their observations are correct for that time frame, but they cannot say with any degree of certainty at all that their observations apply to all of time on earth.
A Nun Mouse
I propose more common sense wherever it is you emenate from. Since global warming is a still in doubt proposition, to say that it clearly causes warmer water is a statement that I do not belive can be supported by facts.
My weatherman cannot tell me what the weather will do here next week. No one can. Since they obviously do not fully understand the mechanisms at work in the atmosphere, I don’t see how they can understand something as comlex as a hurricane.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:36:35 am
“See, I’ve got this here hammer”, said Global Warming Supporter, making a messy job of peeling a potato.
“Too bad for you” said Global Warming Skeptic, “’cause there’s no such thing as a nail.”
October 19th, 2005 at 10:48:23 am
Thanks for scolding all us big business, tree hating Republicans. We love breathing dirty air and drinking polluted water (when we aren’t feeding senior citizens dog food). Your holier than thou attitude is appreciated. Enjoy your ride home to your large energy sucking house in your large gas guzzling SUV. Hope you are inspired to tell more evil Republicans how they should be more environmentally responsible. We can all learn a lot from your example!
October 19th, 2005 at 10:48:36 am
>they cannot say with any degree of certainty at all that their observations apply to all of time on earth
This really makes no sense at all. First of all, I didn’t suggest the evidence was strong enough to be absolutely definitive. I said it was far stronger than the absurd “anecdotal” example you posted above.
Secondly, the study shows a clear pattern in sea surface temperatures going back to 1930, which is far into the natural “warm” phase of the Atlantic temperature oscillation; yet as you can see from this graph, current temperatures far exceed that attributable to natural oscillations going back to 1930. You don’t have to have records going back billions of years to see strong evidence for a global warming contribution to hurricane intensity.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:51:32 am
(Note that in that graph, the dotted line represents hurricane intensity — and it hasn’t even factored in this season’s record hurricane strength).
October 19th, 2005 at 11:11:50 am
Just remember all you pro-business right wingers who want to deny any human influence on Mother Nature: MOTHER NATURE ALWAYS BATS LAST!
A Nun Mouse
Ahhh. There we go. I was waiting for the “right wingers” to be blamed?
Hey Mouse, do Liberals drive cars??
While the global warming issue may not be idiotic, comments like those above truly are.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:17:35 am
Synthetic Zero,
I can see how the sea surface temperature cirrelates to hurricanes, what your graph DOES NOT indicate is the correlation between “global warming” and sea surface temperature. I’d be interested in that graph.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:42:14 am
Well, for example, consider a study published in _Science_ last month, as described here, which shows that hurricane intensity has gone up around the world (not just in the Atlantic) over the last 35 years. If this variation were due only to naturally-occurring oscillations, it should show some regions getting hotter, and some getting cooler, with hurricane intensity going up and down in different parts of the world, but averaging out to zero over time. However, in fact, what you see is a global rise in activity over a sustained period.
The recent uptick in sea and air temperature is larger than anything we’ve seen over the last 1000 years, and it’s accelerated since 1920 (see this NOAA page on the subject.
Here’s an overview of current evidence.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:42:39 am
Bill,
It’s Bush’s fault! (eyes rolling) ;-)
October 19th, 2005 at 11:48:41 am
If you want to make the claim that global warming is occuring, you need to show that if everything that contributes to global warming is excluded, the Earth would be cooler.
In effect, you need to show evidence that would indicate that the Earth (if we weren’t here messing it all up) should be cooler.
The graph you show SZ, correlates hurricane activity with water temp, but that really has no relevance to an argument about global warming. Tex is right when he is saying that comparing temperature oscillations over 75 years is only a small portion of the Earth’s existence. I don’t deny global warming can occur, in fact I think it still is a viable and extremely important theory that needs to be tested. Still, global warming is still not an exceptionally strong theory at this point and the fact remains that it needs to be tested further in order to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I have not seen much of the data for or against global warming (the actual papers, not heresay results), but in order to make that claim you need to show two things:
1) Like I said above - the whole “The Earth should be cooler than it is”
2) Show a correlation of this warming trend to human influence
3) Show a causation of this warming trend to human influence
On a final note, peer-reviewed journals are not exempt from “bad science,” SZ. I have seen more than just a handful of papers that really should not have been published. I’m not saying that the articles that deal with Global Warming are based in bad science - only that studies published in Nature should not be judged because they are published in Nature.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:57:34 am
While ìstudiesî of this or that certainly support oneÃs argument, itÃs amusing to see people seizing upon them as conclusive of their POV, as if itÃs impossible to find a study that says the exact opposite. There are as many studies out there supporting every position imaginable on a given subject as there are undergraduates and graduates trying to get published. Moreover, scientists certainly arenÃt immune from putting their own value systems into the scientific process. Computer models that attempt the daunting task of predicting long-term climate change are only as valid as the assumptions on which they are based. And any scientist will tell you that those assumptions can be made with particular goals in mind . . . just ask the ones working at Phillip Morris back in the 60s and 70s. So while scientific studies should be well regarded on their face by those to whom they are proffered, any single one is hardly a trump card, especially in a field as unsettled as global warming.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:00:41 pm
Bink, this isn’t really the place to have an extended debate over whether global warming is occurring or not. I encourage you to look at the evidence yourself. There are a tiny minority of scientists who are still skeptical of global warming, but, despite claims by some in the media to paint a “controversy”, there really is a broad consensus among climate experts that global warming is, in fact, occurring, and it is due to human activity, primarily. Please take a look at the links I posted above (just prior to your post), or this site which provides a very good, dispassionate overview.
Regarding “Bush’s fault” I think it’s ridiculous to think of this as a partisan issue. Just consider this: what if global warming really is happening, and it is primarily due to human activity, as almost every climate scientist believes? Even if it were just a 10% chance, it would be something we should all take damn seriously, Democrat or Republican.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:06:12 pm
I just want to make one last comment regarding the above “a field as unsettled as global warming” remark. The field isn’t “unsettled” as implied above. There are a tiny handful of scientists who publically doubt whether global warming is caused by human activity, but the vast majority have little doubt. To simply say “there are studies on both sides” is really absurd — you should actually look at the studies and see for yourself what they say. Look, for example, at the paleoclimactic record over the last 1000 years. It is a very striking sudden surge in temperature just in the last century.
This page discusses the consensus in the scientific community.
There is controversy over whether global warming is responsible for hurricane intensity — though I think the evidence is pretty strong — but there is very little real controversy over global warming itself.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:22:53 pm
Not unsettled, huh?
Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/86.pdf)
Antarctic Ice Sends Mixed Warming/Cooling Signals (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd040202b.html)
Climate Trend is One of Cooling — Not Warming (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd032502d.html)
Tree Rings Establish Temperature Fluctuations Over The Centuries (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd032602b.html)
These studies took a whole 3 minutes to find, and were merely the first among pages and pages of hits returned on a google search. None of them should be lapped up blindly, as they are no more or less dispositive than those cited to previously. But to say “the vast majority [of scientists] have little doubt” about global warming and its causes is simply untrue.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:29:28 pm
To hopefully clear up a small point of confusion–global warming simply refers to the average temperature of the planet increasing. That’s pretty much beyond dispute. What dispute there is in the scientific community is related to how much of it is due to human activity, how high it will rise before stabilizing, and what effects this will have. But several decades of data, combined with the deep ice core samples that give us temperature data over a much longer time scale, are more than sufficient to state that the current trend is for an increase in temperature, and it frankly doesn’t matter whether the increase is entirely due to humans or entirely due to non-human factors for the purpose of saying that global warming is occuring.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:31:54 pm
No, it is not untrue. Those four pages come from two biased advocacy websites, not from unbiased scientific sources. The IPCC conducted a thorough survey of the state of current climate research, interviewing thousands of prominent climatologists in the field, and found a broad consensus which I noted above. There are, of course, a small number of advocacy groups who prominently cast doubt on the scientific consensus, but to paint the field as a whole as “unsettled” is simply ridiculous.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:43:40 pm
Granted, I am a simpleton, but everything I’ve read here still does not have me convinced. The fact remains that there are at least two different temperature testing procedures in use.
One method is to anylize ice cores. The other is a direct temperature reading. The latter should be far more exact than the other.
Also, even within the direct teperature reading there are differances. One of the articles stated that of the 7000 instruments now in use, only 1000 or so were in use in the 1800’s. If that is true, I would think that any broad hypothesis based on averages would be considered suspect. I would think that a larger sample size would achieve more accurate results overall.
Given that the above is true, maybe we have the ability to be far more accurate today than in times past and that is what accounts for the difference.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:46:59 pm
So your studies are better than my studies? Well, my dad can beat up your dad. I suppose it just comes down to which scientists’ motives you decide to impugn.
You’ll probably find that most tax attorneys think the tax code doesn’t need to be reformed, but such an opinion poll is hardly dispositive of the issue.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:13:28 pm
The biggest hurricane ever is poised to make landfall just as WH officials may be indicted? Two words: Karl Rove!
October 19th, 2005 at 1:22:36 pm
Joe,
LOL! No doubt Rove whipped up this hurricane to distract from the Grand Jury proceedings.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:29:11 pm
The main argument in favor of using ice core samples is that the precision and accuracy of a direct reading is dependent upon the the accuracy and precision of the themometer used at the specific time and location. Ice core samples, however, have a broad temporal range measured by a single instrument calibrated on known values. Thus, the ice core proponents contend that ice core measurements are more reliable because not only are there a different number of sensors out there today than there were a hundred years ago, but the accuracy and precision of the sensors have changed through time, making comparisons across time problematic.
All of that aside, it is fairly ridiculous to try to attribute the storms of this seasont to global warming. That’s not to say that a discussion of global warming isn’t relevant–many of the models predict an eventual increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms due to changes in the sea temperature–but most of those models make their predictions decades in the future, not today. Attempting to find a causal link between a current storm and a long-term temperature trend is risky at best. To repeat a common rant of mine: correlation does not equal causation.
Personally, I’m undecided which measurement is the better one. And I honestly don’t know how much of the warming trend is attributable to human activity–that’s an extremely difficult question to answer. But the studies I’ve read that show a small but significant warming trend are the ones with which I have the fewest methodological qualms, as they tend to have the most stringent controls on their statistical analysis. And for what it’s worth, I have read a rather substantial number of these studies, so I do have some context for comparison.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:30:36 pm
“Granted, I am a simpleton, but everything I’ve read here still does not have me convinced.”
No Texican-
A Nun Mouse is the simpleton. You’re a more complex partisan, better able to disguise your political bias as diligent inquiry.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:28:12 pm
Matt,
I guess this is what this all boils down to, eh.
Ever wonder why a lot of money, time, and energy is spent on global warming and not on the more imminently dangerous near earth asteroid and comet detection?
It’s because with the asteroids, there is no villain. No one to blame. No politics of fear to be played.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:03:23 pm
Like I said, unsettled:
“A stalagmite from an Alpine cave may indicate that global warming is not as unusual as many think.
Deposits laid down in the stalagmite have enabled a European team to probe past climates confirming a Medieval Warm Period between AD 800 and 1300.
The warm spell is also indicated in some studies of tree-rings, ice-cores and coral reef growth records.
Writing in Earth and Planetary Science Letters the researchers suggest that global warming is a natural process.
Other scientists, however, say phenomena such as the Medieval Warm Period become less significant when broad sets of so-called “proxy data” are calibrated and synthesised to give a truly global picture - not just regional ones.
When this is done, they argue, the warming witnessed in the past few decades appears to be very unnatural . . . .”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4636115.stm
October 19th, 2005 at 4:07:39 pm
“Ever wonder why a lot of money, time, and energy is spent on global warming and not on the more imminently dangerous near earth asteroid and comet detection?”
Certainly politics helps drive any allocation of money, but it’s the gradual nature of the global flood scenario that encourages reaction against it, whereas sudden, earth-shattering calamities tend to inspire a more fatalistic response, regardless of ideology.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:40:45 pm
Actually, the strange thing, to me, is that there is such a partisan divide in this debate. The fact is, even a small chance that global warming is caused by human activity ought to be enough to spur us to action. Global warming skeptics seem to argue that if there is any doubt about the conclusions held by the majority of climatologists, that’s cause to sit around and do nothing. What we’re looking at, however, is akin to playing a game of Russian Roulette — the skeptics say there’s only one bullet in the gun, others say there’s five or even six. But one bullet or six, we’re still faced with a potential global economic catastrophe which it seems prudent to take at least somewhat seriously.
>My studies are better than your studies
Yes, they are. A comprehensive survey of climate research conducted last year by Science showed that, among studies published in credible peer-reviewed journals, about 75% agreed with the consensus view on global warming, and the remaining 25% were technical analysis or studies of paleoclimate that did not explicitly accept or reject the consensus view — but they found zero, yes, zero, none of the studies published in peer reviewed journals rejected the consensus view.
So yes, you will find papers written for oil industry-funded nonprofits and a few fringe scientists promoting the idea that global warming is not caused by human activity, or that there is significant doubt about it — but it is so far from the scientific mainstream that Science was unable to find even one published study in a peer-reviewed journal rejecting the consensus position.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:46:57 pm
Regarding the comment above wrt to attributing the recent hurricane activity to global warming — yes, some GCM models do not predict a large effect for at least a few decades. However, the point of the MIT study was that, in fact, hurricane intensity is forced by temperature to a much greater degree than predicted by some models. Thus, the models are actually underestimating the effect which we observe in nature — the intensity of hurricanes, in fact, appears to be due to a large extent to ocean surface temperatures, and at least according to this analysis it is reasonable to guess that the current ferocity of hurricanes is about 1/2 due to a natural oscillation and 1/2 due to global warming. Of course, this is just a preliminary analysis, but the point is that it is not too soon to be able to make the argument that it is at least plausible this is due in part to global warming.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:47:57 pm
synthetic, there is partisan divide because the thrust of the argument is that, because global warming is occurring, we should be using socialistic regulatory practices to stop it. That, and Green Party MPs in the European Parliament basically admitted that one of their primary goals with Kyoto was the economic suffocation of what they felt was a too capitalistic America.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:51:16 pm
Synthetic Zero
What kind of action, back to horse drawn carriages? The simple fact of the matter is that any politically acceptable energy source requires that greenhouse gasses be produced.
Wind….hard to run a car on it
Solar….see above
Nuclear…..too many doom and gloom scenarios to be really more than a niche
We can’t dam up rivers. That would kill some snail darter somewhere. The people sounding the alarm on GW are the same ones who stand in the way of a lot of other option.
No, most would rather tell me what kind of car to drive, how big a house I need, etc…
The simple fact of the matter is that to eliminate the need for large amounts of energy would cripple our way of life. In other words, we would reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator.
I don’t know if you are an American or not, but I am. The prospect of our QOL being dropped to meet some 3rd world hell-hole on the off chance that we are contributing to GW is not a very good risk as far as I see it.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:48:29 pm
“but they found zero, yes, zero, none of the studies published in peer reviewed journals rejected the consensus view.”
From the Daily Telegraph, May 1, 2005:
“The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes’s study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been “widely dispersed on the internet”.
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. “It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already,” he said.”
I would put forward that there is currently a strong, ideologically driven pro-publication bias regarding anything that supports an anthropocentric global warming scenario. (and vice versa)
That does not tell us anything about the validity of the science in itself, of course, but it is worth keeping at the back of your head when discussing the subject.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:58:37 pm
>What kind of action, back to horse-drawn carriages?
Hardly. An obvious approach would be, quite simply, to improve efficiency. In fact, it’s quite possible, even probable, that a massive push to deal with global warming could result in an overall positive economic impact, as we increase our energy efficiency and our productivity as a result. This can include investment in more efficient forms of transportation (this can take the form of tax credits and/or other incentives to increase efficiency), hybrid, electric, and hydrogen power sources for cars (which can be used to convert wind and solar power to forms usable for transportation), improved energy efficiency of homes and businesses, etc.
There is no reason to think that we could not maintain a high standard of living while at the same time improving our energy efficiency. Do you really think we actually need to spend as much in energy as we do now to get the same net benefit? That there’s no waste in there that couldn’t be cut?
October 19th, 2005 at 6:16:51 pm
“Hardly. An obvious approach would be, quite simply, to improve efficiency. In fact, it’s quite possible, even probable, that a massive push to deal with global warming could result in an overall positive economic impact,”
It is also possible that it could result in a significant negative impact - and you don’t provide any actual evidence one way or the other. I hope you will excuse us if we just won’t take your word for it.
What we do know is that even (very) limited-impact plans such as Kyoto come with rather prohibitive estimated price tags. (So prohibitive in fact, that you should start looking for countries weaseling out in various fashions real soon now…)
As an aside, this is especially true if you consider the likely positive impact of a warming earth. (It’s far too cold up here in Scandinavia, for instance - that’s why “gulf-stream relocation” scenarios have to be cooked up to get that proper scare effect in these parts.)
October 19th, 2005 at 6:24:24 pm
But Synthetic,
The kind of efficiency you seek may entail dreaded “socialistic regulation”(you know, like ensuring clean water and Social Security), and our allegedly capitalist friends want no part of that. Innovation? Efficiency? Not dictated to us by…by…EUROTRASH. We prefer to pluck profits from the lowest hanging fruit available, preferably without getting out of our Escalade. By God, we’re Americans!
October 19th, 2005 at 6:48:55 pm
Mike - exactly what I was referring to. I would agree that there is a current trend that shows statistically relevant increases in global temperatures of around 0.5 deg C in the past 100 yrs (I believe that’s the “accepted” amount).
What we nee to realize is that “the warming of the globe” is different than “Global Warming.” Global Warming encompases the 2nd and 3rd points of my post above where you have to show 1) the Earth is “warming” (which is pretty evident from the data), 2) correlation, and 3) more importantly (as you have pointed out) causation.
The Kyoto protocol (the one we didn’t ratify or sign or whatever) was ecomomic suicide for the US - basically the benefits did not even closely outweigh the costs. The Kyoto protocol called for too much of a decrease in emmissions.
Synthetic, I can agree with you as a scientist that the way to move forward is improving efficiency, and definitely one way to do that is through the development of “cleaner technology” (cleaner fuel tech, fusion, etc…). If the technology that drives our infrastructure becomes cleaner, then the gradual result would be to reduce emmissions, and probably decrease any negative effect they might have on the environment. Trying to “clean up” the current technology that results in high emmission levels is not as cost-effective in the long run if you want to make any headway in any effort to reduce emmissions. The answer? More research into newer, cleaner technologies.
I agree also that we do not need to decrease our standard of living to accomplish this: we only need to provide the resources necessary for research in this area. (Increase in NSF funding anyone? NIH already gets too much of the Gov’t “science funds” if you ask me).
Your thoughts?
(As a final aside, this comment thread is getting a bit long, you want to move this stuff to a separate post, Brendan?)
October 19th, 2005 at 7:04:03 pm
synthetic, your assumptions run contrary to proven economic models and history. Whenever there is an improvement in efficiency, energy demand increases. No one doubts that computers, televisions, laundry machines, and automobile engines have become incredibly more efficient over the past few decades, but all that has done is lowered the prices of said commodities and/or driven technological pushes to utilize that efficiency and harness more effectivity (e.g., gains in fuel economy are reached, allowing auto companies to innovate for more horsepower; computers become more efficient, allowing chips and boards to become faster and process more complicated code and store more memory; A/Cs become cheaper to operate, so more and more people buy them; etc.).
October 19th, 2005 at 7:39:05 pm
Hey all you scientist types,
Shhh!..quiet down, Andrew’s figured everything out. Innovation has a net zero environmental impact, everybody. Proven economic models. And History too!
Andrew, you’re no economist. You’re no scientist. (You have decent taste in cheerleaders.) Why not shut up so the scientists can continue their fascinating discussion, uninterrupted by your political assertions masquerading as economic and scientific knowledge. You’re not in their league.
October 19th, 2005 at 8:38:34 pm
“Actually, the strange thing, to me, is that there is such a partisan divide in this debate. The fact is, even a small chance that global warming is caused by human activity ought to be enough to spur us to action. Global warming skeptics seem to argue that if there is any doubt about the conclusions held by the majority of climatologists, that’s cause to sit around and do nothing.”
Not as much of a partisan divide as you think, SZ. Conservatives like myself, for example, like to . . . CONSERVE things, including the environment. There was no president more friendly to the environment than Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. I can’t speak for others who have commented, but I and other like-minded individuals agree whole-heartedly that even a small chance that global warming is the threat you make it out to be warrants action. What I take issue with, and what this thread was originally about, is the knee-jerk reaction to a hurricane of saying, “See, global warming!” That is a theory at best, and agenda-driven alarmism at worst.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:10:17 pm
Innovation has a net zero environmental impact, everybody. Proven economic models. And History too!
Holy Shit, can you read?!? Apparently not. What an effin moron you are, LaundraMatt. Here is what I said:
Whenever there is an improvement in efficiency, energy demand increases.
Get that? INCREASES! More energy use=more environmental impact, obviously. synthetic is the one who thought efficiency solves everything. I was pointing out that, no, efficiency merely stimulates demand, and when demand is stimulated, production increases, and when production increases, there is generally an impact.
Efficiency improvements are good for their own sake, but they are NOT the Holy Grail in slowing down global warming. If indeed carbon emissions are the key, we are screwed because no matter how much we cut back, China and India are exploding, and they are not going to cut back. The best option is to plan for global warming and do what is necessary to make sure we can adjust to the changes.
I may be no scientist and no economist, but I am extremely well read and it’s apparent that I sure know a helluva lot more about both subjects than you do. You’re still trying to bring up your reading comprehension to the 5th-grade level, apparently.
Come back when you can make a real argument, dipshit.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:56:48 pm
“Whenever there is an improvement in efficiency, energy demand increases.”
In the strict economic sense of “cost” efficiency, I understand the theory that increased demand can undermine efficiency(cost)gains. But since the subject was GW, my 5th grade reading level :)apparently propelled me to the assumption that you were also incorporating the notion of ‘environmental’ efficiency,(cleaner technologies), or innovation, which as I understand it, inherently reduce environmental impact without an inevitable demand increase to follow.
Andrew, I’m sure you’re ‘extremely’ well read. And I concede that you know more about GW than I do…A lot of people do. But I know an intellectual fraud when I see one. And a thin-skinned one, to boot.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:56:18 am
I apologize, belatedly, to the guys (bink,J Mama,sz,mike,etc) who made this a marvelous thread before I got involved and helped sully it. I found your perspectives on GW thoughtful, educational and refreshingly balanced. Again, sorry if my vendetta chased anybody off.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:37:09 am
It wasn’t you, LaundraMatt; this post has scrolled way down off the top so continuing this debate here seems a little silly. In any event I enjoyed the discussion and I feel we actually did manage to have some decent, reasoned conversation in spite of the tendency in our current superheated political climate (speaking of climate) to just rush ahead with sniping. I feel this issue transcends party politics and I hope as Americans we can continue to have a healthy and reasoned debate about this subject. Meanwhile, here’s to hoping Wilma will not cause as much damage as we are fearing.
October 20th, 2005 at 5:01:38 am
Well, yes, it IS to some extent the fault of people who are PRO-BUSINESS and those people are overwhelmingly conservatives. (Although I do think Democrats are only slightly less beholden to coporate interests…)
It’s real simple. Take the Kyoto treaty: this was a SMALL step towards lowering carbon emsissions. Why are the people in charge against it? Because they dont want to do anything that hampers their rich friends abilities to make money.
Was the Kyoto treaty THE solution to our problems? No. But the point is– as one climatology professor put it– Kyoto was a good start. But, he said, we need TEN Kyoto treaties to make a dent in the carbon emissions and help the enviroment.
The world is facing a very serious situation in the next 50 to 100 years. Global warming is accelerating right at the time that we are beginning to run out of our most basic energy source, oil. We need to quickly find an alternative source of energy for the people of the world, a clean and renewable source. Nobody seems interested. Nobody is talking about it. This is true of the whole political spectrum, with the exception of a few of the more liberal members of Congress and non-profit enviromental organizations.
i don’t think the Democrats are doing a particularly good job.
But when big businesses hire professors to put out bogus arguments and politicize science, it’s clear these aren’t liberals trying to hamper the passing of laws to help preserve the enviroment.
Maybe it’s because the conservatives think we’re all going to heaven when Jesus comes back?
Why preserve the earth when we’re going to Heaven, right?
And as a side note, we rely on oil for many things, not just as a source of energy for transportation. We use oil in all kinds of chemical processes, for exmple in the manufacturing of many of our plastics.
Anyway, let’s just sit back and watch it all burn…..At least we’ll have really cool shopping malls everywhere.
October 20th, 2005 at 1:08:57 pm
A nun mouse, you need to research a little more about the very dire consequences of one or ten kyotos. If a society cannot prosper economically, it cannot afford to take care of the environment. It is that simple. This is why richer countries can be cleaner, and can push for cleaner technologies, which cost money to research, develop and implement, and why poorer, developing countries care less about the environmental impact in the short and long run, and care more abut feeding themselves in the short run. If ten kyotos are not going to make a significant dent on carbon emmissions, then maybe we need to look at another way of approaching the problem, like what the US and a bunch of pacific rims countries are currently doing, focusing on technology development and not restrictive policies that criple the economy. I do not have the answers, but it became clear a long time ago that kyoto was not the answer. It was not even a step in the right direction, imo, because crippling an economy only guarantees that it will be harder to develop and implement cleaner technologies. A sustainable environment goes beyond Americans driving hybrids and killing endagred species birds with windmills so we can feel good about ourselves when we go to bed at night. The social and economic realities that make environmental mitigation sucha hard balance to reach need to be looked at, and not through green, feel-good, colored glasses that an be detrimental to the end goal.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:02:34 pm
As for societies “falling apart” because they cannot economically prosper, I suppose that’s why many (all major ..?) European nations and japan signed it……Kytoto, that is….Because they are all part of the “anti-business conspiracy” and they want their societies to “fall apart.”…..
LOL
Give me a break…..
The economic challenges to America aren’t coming from pollution laws. I mean please get a clue.
Plus, gee, what are the choices we have here…Global warming with all of its devastating long term ecological consequences versus using human ingenuity to reduce pollution while finding alternative sources of energy, which can be done while corporations make money on the whole process.
What am I thinking??? I need my $8 an hour job at WalMart so I can buy Chinese made goods as the polar ice caps melt…..
WOOOO HOOOO!!! SURFS UP!! CHARLEY DON’T SURF!!
.
October 20th, 2005 at 2:52:22 pm
Dude, I was totally polite in my response.
If you take a look at the stagnant economies of western Europe, versus the up and coming economies of eastern Europe, you can see what I mean. Or, look at latin American countries. The economic conditions of a society are what determine how much human and economic capital they can allocate to what goals. Look, it is obvious to the unbiased eye that countries who cannot afford a decent quality of life cannot afford to think of environmental mitigation the short run. Just like countries with high qualities of life and middle clas sprosperity can afford to spend large amounts of economic an dhuman capital fighting for human rights and gar marriage, whereas countries where the people are more worried about putting bread on the table have less of an ear for such matters. I am not saying environmental mitigation and civil rights are not super important, but that the realities of developing nations need to be taken into account if we are to develop workable plans. I was not whinning about the hardships about America’s economy. I am saying that to ask a developing economy to cripple its growth for environmental benefit is unrealistic, because it will not happen. Japan can afford to say they will comply with kyoto because, uhm, they think they can afford to take the economic hit. If we find a way to make it affordable and beneficial short term for developing countries–whose pollution is growing the most–then we can stand finding solutions. You missed my point.
October 20th, 2005 at 4:22:49 pm
Nun Mouse, you’re neither pure as a Nun nor smart as a Mouse. Japan and Western Europe (and Russia) all have shrinking birth rates and thus face a future of smaller populations. All they have to do is be more efficient and watch their populations shrink, and those 1990 levels will not be difficult to reach. Contrast that with the USA, which is growing by millions every decade. We’d have to slam the brakes on our economy to get back to 1990 levels, and millions of poor Americans would suffer as a result. You can point the finger at the rich and at Big Business, but a more accurate term would be “Employers”. If the Kyoto protocols were implemented, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost and the economy would go into a tailspin.
Meanwhile, Beijing adds 25,000 cars a month, and China and India were not under Kyoto. Yeah, that looks like a fair deal to me, and I’m totally sure carbon emissions will be reduced with China and India’s economies exploding like that….
LaundraMatt, the principles I discussed concerning efficiency affect energy use as well. The cheaper energy becomes, the more efficient energy production and delivery systems become, the more energy we will use because the economy then expands and requires more energy. Energy use goes up, and environmental impact goes up (in the aggregate). There are economic models that demonstrate why this is so, and it’s been borne out in history all over the globe. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want, but it will happen nonetheless.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:49:33 pm
You are applying the economic principle of product cost efficiency to the concept of “energy”. This applies well enough to any particular energy source(product), or to a relatively stable composition of different energy sources.
Your argument, as I read it, doesnt seem to account for potentially dynamic changes in the composition of our energy portfolio. Pollution, of course, is a function of both the ‘type’ and ‘amount’ of energy used. I dont see how price-dropping technological advances in hybrid car technology, for example, could possibly result in an aggregate negative environmental impact.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:21:41 pm
LaundraMatt, unless we suddenly go nuclear for all of our electricity needs, we’re going to be oil-dependent for a long, long time.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:40:38 pm
Andrew,
I don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, and neither do you, so it’s best not to make such declarations, when one cannot possibly be sure what the future holds.