Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (16926)	10/15/2007 12:37:55 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

There is a reason why people like Gray, Lindzen and Singer keep getting quoted by E-skeptics: it's because there is a dearth of skeptics who are also scientists. Yeah, I know, the others are "intimidated"; what nonsense. If there were a lot of scientists who didn't substantially agree with the views expressed in the IPCC report, we would be hearing from a lot more people than the same old same old people. Scientists who work in universities get tenure, and there are plenty of wealthy companies out there that would love for them to step forward and provide either arguments or empirical studies that refute the basic contention that increasing amounts of carbon emissions are harming the environment. There would be huge amounts of money available for such studies and papers. Heck, even I would be pleased if that were the case--it would makes all sorts of things a lot easier. Time will tell if Gray, Singer et al are correct or the IPCC. It is utterly senseless to spend time arguing the point here.

To: longnshort who wrote (16926)	10/20/2007 2:44:00 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Dr. Gray's statements, if reported accurately, reflect a common fallacy among global warming deniers: an implicit assumption that the proposed effects of global warming only matter if they are found to be occurring in or near the USA. To the extent that global warming supporters propose links between global warming and hurricanes, those links are expected to be "GLOBAL," as one might expect when dealing with "global warming." But, look at the numbers quoted by Dr. Gray. He claimed that for the 1957 to 2006 period there were only 83 hurricanes. That number is wrong on two counts. First, according to NOAA, hurricanes.noaa.gov ,the official keeper of hurricane records for the Atlantic and Caribbean basins, 83 hurricanes from 1957 to 2006 hit the United States. There were more than 300 total Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes during that time frame. Of those, about 120 became "major" hurricanes, which for Atlantic storms means they reached category 3, 4 or 5. Second, Dr. Gray obviously failed to include the hurricanes of the Pacific and Indian Oceans in his numbers. This 2006 research article sciencemag.org shows that in just the 30 year period form 1974 to 2004 there were about 1000 hurricanes and typhoons, of which over 300 became major storms. For Pacific and Indian Ocean storms that means they reached category 4 or 5 status. Taken together, the total number of hurricanes world wide has not declined. In fact, the numbers have increased in the Pacific and Indian Oceans while holding steady or declining slightly in the Atlantic and Carribbean. The results from both reports above are consistent with this 2007 NOAA report gfdl.noaa.gov that proposes that global warming will increase wind shear in the Atlantic and Carribbean, making hurricane formation more difficult, while decreasing wind shear in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, making hurricane formation easier. Further, it suggests that hurricanes in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and Caribbean will tend to be stronger due to increased sea surface temps while those in Atlantic will tend to be only marginally enhanced. Bottom line: the whole premise of your headline, Why has warmer weather DECREASED hurricanes?" is wrong. Remember, "global warming" means GLOBAL. theoildrum.com