Here we go again
While concerns mount regarding Hurricane Gustav and its windy followers, reports in the scientific journal, Nature, noted in early September that future tropical storms will only get stronger as the oceans warm.
Quickly picked up by many news outlets, this story is attracting a lot of attention not only for its intriguing claims but also because it is part of an increasingly controversial topic – global warming.
A team of researchers, led by Professor James Elsner of Florida State University, studied satellite data from 1981 to 2006.
They found that while the sea surface temperature rose during the period, the wind speeds of the strongest storms were higher. The increase in stronger storms was greatest in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
As the oceans continue to warm, an increase in stronger storms such as Category Four and Category Five hurricanes will occur. According to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, which can be found on the National Hurricane Center’s website, Category Four and Category Five hurricanes can have winds reaching over 131 mph.
Sigh.
Environmental Defense, a nonprofit organization dedicated to finding solutions for “society’s most urgent environmental problems,” states that oceans have been heating up since 1975.
Wasn’t 1975 around the time several news magazines said we were entering a new ice age? From a post I wrote early September
I wonder if they can explain the hurricanes during the cooler periods, such as the 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed somewhere between 300,000 and 1 million in Bengladesh, and Typhoon Tip in 1979, which was one of the most powerful recorded storms ever. Notice that both of those were in the era around which several magazines said an new ice age was coming.
We also had Camille in 1969 and Allen in 1980. How about the Great Galveston hurricane of 1900? Typhoon Nancy in 1961 and Typhoon Ophelia in 1960? Nancy’s winds were originally measured up to 215 mph, which was overestimated, but, still pretty strong, and Ophelia traveled 8,500 miles, making it the longest tracked one ever.
But, good news! Latest science debunks Hurricanes and Global Warming Link. And the Canadian Free Press has lots of stories under that banner.
The Climahysterica need to learn to use Google. Much like The One should. Much like a group that is out there trying to “Save The Buckeyes!” should have
It’s not the best-researched global-warming theory, but it could be the most horrifying to certain fans of college football: Environmentalists said Friday that climate change might push the growing range of Ohio’s iconic buckeye tree out of the state, leaving it for archrival Michigan.
Save The Buckeye, a coalition of environmental activists and outdoor enthusiasts, has a billboard in Columbus warning about the fate of the buckeye tree, and backers plan to hold rallies during football tailgating events. They’re hoping to channel Ohio pride into environmental awareness and action.
Not the best researched. Much like most of the Climahysterics “theories.”
In fact, Aesculus glabra, the Ohio buckeye, has a large growing range. It exists in climates as warm as southern Texas, not far from the Mexican border. It is highly unlikely that global warming would exterminate it in Ohio.
Woops.
Teach said: Wasn’t 1975 around the time several news magazines said we were entering a new ice age?
That’s why you shouldn’t get your scientific information from magazines. As John McCain rightly points out, the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels.
I will continue to trust the Farmer’s Almanac. They’re right most of the time. 😀
Silke, McCain is wrong. Plain and simple. I never agreed with him on that point. Besides, if that is the case, then why did the temps go up in the mid to late 1800’s? No SUVs, ya know.
I love the Farmers Almanac. They are calling for a snowy winter in NC. I hope it happens.
Teach said: Besides, if that is the case, then why did the temps go up in the mid to late 1800’s? No SUVs, ya know.
First of all, the temperatures in the mid to late 1800’s were nowhere near what they are today. In fact on average over the last 1,000 years they are nowhere near what they are today.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
Second, climate scientists readily admit Earth’s climate changed long before human activity could have played a role. The difference now is that none of those natural factors can account for the rate of change we are currently experiencing. The Sun’s output has not changed enough to account for the difference, nor has the Earth’s distance from the Sun changed enough. What has changed dramatically is the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – specifically CO2. And scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2 by the difference in the isotopes.
Thank you for making my point, Silke, since, during that time period, known as the Little Ice Age, temps were down. Then, in the mid 1800’s, they started going up, in what has been a cycle for the life of the Earth.
Just because forest fires occurred naturally in the past does not mean forest fires cannot be attributed to man-made causes today. It is the evidence that matters, not what happened in the past.
The rise in global average temperatures and the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades is unprecedented. All natural causes have been studied and cannot account for this – not the output from the Sun and not the distance of the Earth from the Sun.
The candidate you are supporting for President understands this, even if you don’t.
but wouldn’t “evidence” by rule be something that has occurred in the past so you have a baseline? You can’t have evidence that occurs in the future, that by definition would be speculation wouldn’t it?
Only evidence for the current warming trend (in the last few decades) is relevant. Teach is trying to make the argument that just because natural causes have contributed to climate change in the past that must mean the current change is also natural. Yet he provides no credible scientific evidence of what specifically that natural cause is. We know that greenhouse gases are at an unprecedented level and we can quantify which ones are attributable to human emissions (i.e. burning fossil fuels, etc.) or human causes (i.e. altering the landscape). Where’s his evidence? He never answers this question. That should tell you something about the strength of his argument.