Are you kidding? Where is the scientific evidence?, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news70203350.html

http://www.physorg.com/news70203350.html

There is no scientific evidence of that claim/statement at all. However, I can disprove this claim/statement.

Correlatin of global warming and the alleged increase in hurricanes

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn"t factored into an analysis of Earth"s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth"s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth"s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures" regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC"s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

The math: by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth"s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth"s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of Earth"s climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth"s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun"s energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years.

"If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

- Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

I have to wonder if everyone has lost their memory. When I was a teenager (35 years ago) the alarmists were touting that if we didn't do something we would freeze to death in 20 years. My opinion is that the mean temperature of earth is regulated by solar activity and has hopefully peaked.

Just one question, what activity of man is causing the melting of the icecaps on mars?

I'm sure five pounds of carbon per one gallon of gas is going to have no effect on things. And, I'm sure, there's no link between this warming cycle and the advent of man's industrial "progress." And, I'm sure, the fact that most scientists are pointing to a notion of man-aggravated global warming is just pure bullshit. Man is causing no stress on the enviroment and the cost of being Quixotic in the quest to stem something we have no control over is too high.

Ok, maybe it's just me...But "mother nature" is in one of her moods as far as I can see. Scientists have been saying since I was a kid (I'm 41) that atomic bomb bursts, coal exhaust and other man made pollutants will cause the end of the world. I'm sorry but I'm really sick of the scientific community and there "logical" explanations and predictions. The earth in all its natural glory will cause man-kind to be as extinct as the dinosaurs when she feels like it. All man will do is speed p the process. Humans are a virus on this planet. We reproduce at an insane pace and we destroy every resource we encounter. In the process we've managed to invent wonderful things such as cancer, HIV and sundry other infections, diseases and ailments. Soon, maybe not in my lifetime but soon, Mother nature will say enough is enough and with out a whimper or a bang, man will be as extinct as the dinosaurs. Till that time comes I'm gonna go outside, take a deep breath of the foul air we breath, drink another beer and lay in mother natures arms.....and hope the almost ozone free atmosphere doesn't give me too bad a case of skin cancer. BEERS TO ALL OF YOU. WORRY LESS AND LIVE MORE!

These articles are just more pseusdo-science crap to create jobs for the liberal science types. They ignore those portions of the science which do not support their positions and accentuate that which does. Mother nature is a lot bigger than man when it comes to most of what is happening with regards to the weather and hurricanes. By the way, the real damage in New Orleans was caused by a flood of poor, stupid people who chose to not evacuate homes below sea level and the unfortunate breaking and overtopping of levees which were not maintained or modernized due to political dishonesty for the last 100 years. Furthermore, rebuilding a welfare state below sea level may not be a really good idea.

Global Warming?

I also remember that the alarmists (people with opinions based on small piece of the puzzle) had said that the global warming would cause emassive flooding to low lying areas. Yet, recently there is some research showing that there was evidence of flooding thousands of years ago that formed the coral terraces on certain land masses.

Also, another point; (I may be slightly off taget with the timeline) The record keeping for hurricanes in the tropics was not accruate until the beginning of the 1900's and cannot be used to accurately determine whether global warming was a factor in an increase of frequency.

It would appear that the frequency of hurricanes, making landfall, may be linked to the cyclical nature of weather patterns and systems. (refer to the "El Nino" and "La Nina" theories put forward). If you were to look at the historical records kept from the mid eighteen hundreds you can see a pattern of "generation skip" where multiple landfalls were recorded every few decades or so.

It may be that if the activists want to pur forward theories as to the effects of man on his environment; They should concentrate on things like the levels of air pollution, degredation of marine and land ecosystems, the effects of pollutants within our oceans and terrestrial water supplies, and their effects on human beings (like the increase in cancer rates withing populations). What may have a larger impact is if people hear "We are killing ourselves" other then "Global Warming!" because the average person thinks "Hey, how the heck can I change something like global warming?"

-A humble opinion from a layman living in the Caribbean.

The Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Germs and viruses don't exist either it is merely a scam by the medical community.

Lol, if germs and viruses are just a conspiracy I must be in on it, because that's what I study!

I understand that information used to show the unprecedented rise in temperatures focuses on the last six hundred years. In the 1300's, the little "Ice age" occurred, it has only recently ended. The information used was deliberately picked to show a rise in temperature. This constitutes deliberate Scientific fraud.

Talking heads talking to each other. Sounds like a republiklan convention.

This post has been edited by lengould on Jul 3 2006, 01:51 PM

Interesting how Trenbreth has now become an "expert" on Atlantic Hurricanes.

Interesting in that this is NOT an area he is known for.

Notice the headline:
Global warming surpassed natural cycles in fueling 2005 hurricane season

What are they REALLY SAYING though is that GW (supposedly) increased the ALREADY VERY WARM EQUATORIAL WATERS by ~ 0.8 F, or LESS THAN a 1% increase.

This TINY increase is NOT MEASURABLE in hurricane formation and has NOTHING to do with the intensity of the storms that hit the shore. Katrina was a relatively insignificant Cat 1 storm when it passed south of Florida.

Note any hurricane which makes it into the Gulf, late in the season, WITHOUT making landfall on either Florida or a Carribean Island is MOST LIKELY going to strengthen enormously.

Maybe THIS will shed some light on Trenbreths RECENT pronouncement.

Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
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 other 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 the 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 hurricanes 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).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea


Feel free to check out on Chris Landsea's IMPRESSIVE credentials vis a vis Atlantic Basin Hurricanes.

Arthur

yes... very true

yes... i like orgys

I'll share a toast to that. (I'm a light drinker, so go easy )

I'm 39 and there seems to be a non-stop stream of advice on whether or not cholesterol is bad or maybe it's good. Salt will kill you ... oh wait, it might help some ... ask your doctor (in other words, we accept no responsibility for any claim we make). Chocolate is bad for your health ... oops. We had prohibition and now wine is suppose to be good for your health. We were going to freeze from an Ice Age and now cities will be flooded etc. LMAO!

I'm not discounting real toxins and pollutants but the hype over things that are entirely etherial, IMO, is almost at religious levels of faith.

We supposedly began from a giant cosmic fireball, then proceeded to have the Earth created in an environment that would have killed anything on it in less than a second and from that we were pummelled with mantle penetrating asteroids and after all this life still managed to gain hold and even exists miles underground in places you wouldn't even think anything could survive.

Nature is more than capable of handling herself/itself. Sure, keep an eye out for real problems but we could use less paranoid, "the sky is falling", "the end of world will be in 2000, no wait 2001, no wait 2006 ... ok maybe 2012" etc. It would be nice if fewer guys were running around with nukes, but what can you say ... democracies seem to reelect them.

Cheers!

This post has been edited by StevenA on Aug 15 2006, 03:52 AM