Here's the cause right here:

This guy has a lot to learn. How can he get money to do studies, or grants to make better products, if this is just a naturally occuring event? Amateur.

Wolf Blitzer is salivating.

"The effect of global warming was at most second order," he wrote, "and probably not present at all."

Good scientist. Hurricane researchers that blame things on global warming don't get no money from the gummint.

/ woo! politics in under seven posts.

I was wondering why they never mentioned the actual temperature variation in the article itself. All they say is: "Records show the AMO was cool from 1900-1925, warm from 1926-1969, cool from 1970-1994 and warm since 1995."

plus the graph they use is even LAMER:



a temperature variation of 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit? I must be missing something, since isn't global warming projected to raise the mercury much faster?

"Before recorded history tribes and such just got wiped out"

-Or were smart enough not to live there. Or at least move out of the area when storms struck...

"a temperature variation of 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit? I must be missing something, since isn't global warming projected to raise the mercury much faster?"

-1 or 2 degrees is all it takes with systems like this. Also global warming will cause a rise in the range of 2-5 degrees in the air temperature, and it won't be uniform. (some places will actually get cooler) The main effect is really introducing instability into long-established climactic patterns, so who knows what the hell will happen since it's chaotically based...

I call BS on this one.
There's no way to know what kind of patterns hurricanes take, or even if there is a cycle at all to them. The reliable record only date back to 1850 or so, and hence an overall climate pattern is downright impossible to establish. It may, in fact, be true that they have 20-year cycles, but we can't know for sure until more research is done.

/only skimmed TFA.
//researching hurricanes for dissertation

"The effect of global warming was at most second order," he wrote, "and probably not present at all."

Why do you hate global warming?

Gortex

-Define 'overall'. 500 years? 5000? 1,000,000? There may be patterns lasting millenia (could be many different ones)but they seem to have id'd one on the scale of decades so what's the prob?

Seems kinda far-fetched to me. Blame the terrorists. Or Canada...

/florida would also be a good scapegoat

We're comin ta get cha..

Global warming aside it would be better to take the projections seriously. I read about it on National Geographic

At the end of the article mentions:

"When you looked at images of Jeanne, Frances, or Ivan, you didn't see a complete doughnut-shaped eye wall like you see in a really powerful hurricane," Reinhold says. "You see that in images of Andrew in '92. Andrew looked like a buzz saw." William Gray and his colleagues, who predicted last year's above-average probability of destruction, have done so again for this year. It may turn out the hurricanes of 2004 were but a wake-up call. The buzz saws might already be winding up far out at sea.


Compare Katrina to previous hurricanes, they do look different.

Gortex

I call BS on this one.
There's no way to know what kind of patterns hurricanes take, or even if there is a cycle at all to them. The reliable record only date back to 1850 or so, and hence an overall climate pattern is downright impossible to establish. It may, in fact, be true that they have 20-year cycles, but we can't know for sure until more research is done.

Try to RTFA

In one, Steve Gray, an Arizona-based research associate with the U.S. Geological Survey, led a team that tracked the weather cycles backward by studying ancient tree rings from Europe and the southern United States. Healthy weather produced wide tree rings. Drought or other trauma caused narrow rings.

The climate cycles kept repeating.

"It's been working in the same way for at least five centuries or so," said Gray, whose study was published last year.

How far back might the cycles extend?

"I'll go out on a limb and say at least one or two millennia," he replied.

Submitter is an asshat. Global warming CAN cause global weather catastrophes, which is obvious to anyone who has watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation". It's morons like these climatologists that give TV sci-fi science a bad name.

Note to liberals - Since you don't base your bomb throwing and rhetoric on anything realistic in the first place, feel free to continue blaming natural disasters on the Bush administration.

Amigajoe
-Define 'overall'. 500 years? 5000? 1,000,000? There may be patterns lasting millenia (could be many different ones)but they seem to have id'd one on the scale of decades so what's the prob?

The problem is that it could just be a 'freak' period for hurricanes, with things all out of whack. Any study of climate patterns needs at least 500 years of solid data, in my opinion. (note, some climate scholars, who're more qualified and actually smarter than me, disagree on this)

The pattern emerging for the last few decades could be indicative of what cyclonic storms are like. It also, however, could be simply one of the many 'blips' of odd weather which we know of. (ie - the Little Ice Age, the Year Without Summer, the Great Warm Decade)

I simply think 150 years is not enough time to make assertions like the article seems to do on meteorlogical phenomenon which have been in place for millions of years.

Sorry this is so badly written....I'm too tied atm

Kinda makes you want to go out and buy a HUMMER doesn't it...

Yes, because the physical appearance of hurricanes should be a determining factor.

/drunk
//weather junkie
///still drunk though

I concur with vjp. Doesn't anyone pay attention to Sci-Fi climatology anymore?

/article looks like it means business

"During the time when so few hurricanes hit North America, we as a society framed decisions about land use, construction standards and other aspects of our lives around the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico," wrote FIU's Willoughby last fall. "Built into those plans was the unstated assumption that hurricanes would continue to stay away from our shores as they had for the last third of a century."

Yeah - that makes sense. When I was a kid in Miami during the early 1960's, no one lived full time on the coasts. People built beach houses and hotels, but not housing developments or farking trailer parks. There was nothing there, which was wierd, because there was a big building trend in Miami during the early 30s and 40s. During the 70s and 80s, there was a huge building trend for condo's, and in the 90s, you started to see a lot of housing developments butt right up against the water. From what I am seeing now, that trend has continued all the way into the gulf.

Oh well. Looks to be startin' all over again and we'll have a bust, where nothing or little will get built while stuff gets busy falling over. I know there have been a lot of people buying up Oceanfront property in Louisiana after this happened, but someone still has to insure the new developments. Unless the Fed decides to insure those projects, I'm thinkin' nothin's getting done anytime quick.

Note to liberals - Since you don't base your bomb throwing and rhetoric on anything realistic in the first place, feel free to continue blaming natural disasters on the Bush administration.

I plan to go a few steps further tracing the evil that is reality television back to a Richard Nixon/Ben Stein all night bender, the resulting suckage of such shows as you think you dance, american idol, survivor, and my producer is a giant tool created the sucking power that spawned the hurricanes.

Now all i need is a grant from a lefty University to committ some kind of pseudo science (science, i meant pie pants) to my theory, Im looking at you CU buffs..

/Slashy slash slash slash
//Still think people should pet my pink unicorn horn from another thread

vjp:

Global warming CAN cause global weather catastrophes, which is obvious to anyone who has watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation".


That's a nice argument-from-fiction fallacy you've got there!

Kiler
Try to RTFA

Try reading ALL of my original post. I can't be bothered to RTFA right now, but I am merely commenting on the headline.

As for dendrochronological records, they only tell part of the story when it comes to climate trends. (See Ch 3-5 of Jared Diamond's new monograph Collapse for a lengthy explanation on why this is) 95% (I'm not just making that number up, check any scholarly article on the subject) of dendrochronology done in the USA is in the SW of the country. The last time I checked, there weren't too many hurricanes hitting Phoenix.

I have to agree with Gortex.

"The last time I checked, there weren't too many hurricanes hitting Phonix"

/Dendro Database Surfers unite

Yeah, I don't have time to RTFA either, just all the posts so I can reply to comments on my lame post that shows I don't have a clue as to what the story is about.

Here's a clue, Gortex: the reporter doesn't write the headlines, and the scientist interviewed doesn't even get to write the article, okay?

OK World. STOP DOING THIS!!!

Global warming is real. The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me so.

Amigajoe,

They look like awesome places to live. Not smart places... but...

Storms like hurricanes are basically gigantic heat engines. A temperature increase of one degree farenheit may not seem like much on paper, but spread out over thousands of square miles of ocean you're talking about a huge upswing in the amount of energy these storms have available to them. As long as ocean temperatures are at this level or keep rising, your're going to have more storms with greater potential destructive power.

Tracking water temperatures and correlating them to hurricane cycles seems like good science to me, because its the increase in water emperature that spawns the killer storms.

Ocean temperatures have been slowly but steadily increasing for many years now. Whether its caused by a natural cycle, global warming, or a one time freak trend is irrevelevant. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IT IS HAPPENING. There is NO indication that the Atlantic will slink back into its lower temperature ranges anytime soon--in fact, it is the opinion of scientists who know a lot more on this subject than any Farker and who have been studying this problem for decades that the temperatures are only going to increase in the foreseeable future. I'll take their word over any political hack's any day of the week.

One more time: THE CAUSE OF THIS IS IN MANY WAYS IRRELEVANT. Its happening and we have to deal with it. If any of you live near the Gulf or South Atlantic Coast or the Carribean, my advice is to get out now. Not just for safety reasons, but if they are hit for years by killer storm after killer storm, their economies will likely tank badly...

This can't be true. He doesn't blame Bush!

Irregardless

-I hear Pompeii was nice too...

That's right, it wasn't Bush.

It was the Kerry-cons blowing hot air.

How far back might the cycles extend?

"I'll go out on a limb and say at least one or two millennia," he replied.

Aha! That means the real culprit is...



!!

Amigajoe,

I agree with you. Santorini was probably nice too. There is a huge caldera there now but that's supposed to be very nice to visit. A friend of mine went there on his honeymoon and loved it. Pompeii is probably an interesting place to visit now as well. It's about timing. Volcanoes are slightly more ... predictable now than hurricanes. Although we have a really good idea of where they will hit. (not many in Phoenix)

I would say if you want to live in a hurricane prone area be prepared to pay the price. NOLA dodged a bullet for a long time. They did know that one day the big one was coming. Floridians have been getting pounded and should know that as well.

The debate is ... who pays to rebuild?

Oh, and I guess this is another pretty good excuse for me to get to post the global warming/hurricane Katrina political cartoon I drew...



"As it turns out, there are these repeating cycles of the climate rising and falling, so that means global warming is a complete sham and we can get back to POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE ALL WE WANT with absolutely no consequences whatsoever!!! Fire up the smoke factory!!" Right. The presence of one doesn't rule out the other, you know.

Perhaps those $600K condos on Miami Beach aren't a good long term investment after all...

Someone said...

"The main effect is really introducing instability into long-established climactic patterns, so who knows what the hell will happen since it's chaotically based..."

If by 'long stablished climactic pattern' you mean that the climate of the Earth has never, ever, not been in a state of fluctuation.

Well, that sums it all up. No global warming. I guess I was not the only one to noitice that this year's summer was not nearly as hot as last year's.

"If by 'long stablished climactic pattern' you mean that the climate of the Earth has never, ever, not been in a state of fluctuation."

-Is that what I said?

E.4 There appears to be a recent trend towards increased frequency and intensity of disasters related to extreme weather events. Is this linked to climate change?

Response: It is very difficult to establish trends in weather-related disasters or to attribute recent disasters to specific causes. Hence, the perceived increase in disasters in some parts of the world in recent years may not be real or may be entirely natural. However, studies suggest that the frequency and severity of many types of extreme weather events that can cause disasters will change as the climate warms. Hence, many of the current weather-related disasters may be viewed as examples of what can be expected more often in the future as the global climate continues to warm.

Explanation: A weather-related disaster can occur when society and/or ecosystems are unable to effectively cope with an extreme weather event. That is, both the extremeness of the weather event and the sensitivity of ecosystems or society are factors. The dramatic rise in damages in recent years due to such disasters may therefore be at least partly attributed to demographic factors, such as increased human population in vulnerable regions and increased wealth. On the other hand, there are indications that there have also been increases in various types of extreme weather events, at least in some regions of the world. Since these events, by definition, occur infrequently and irregularly, they are difficult to link to global causes. Furthermore, few events are without historical precedence, and, prior to the past few decades, most historical records of such events are not very accurate. However, in many respects, the trends towards more intense and unusual extremes for some types of weather and climate events in some regions in recent years are broadly similar to those projected by climate models and related studies. Hence, while there is no hard proof to link recent disaster trends to climate change, many of these events can be considered as examples of what could happen more frequently in the future.

E.5 Why would global warming lead to more frequent and extreme weather events?

Response: Higher temperatures lead to higher rates of evaporation and precipitation, more frequent heat waves, less frequent cold extremes, and generally more energy for storms and other extremes. However, while models can provide useful clues as to the direction and significance of such changes, the processes involved are complex and the changes in extremes are difficult to predict accurately with current models.

Explanation: Most extreme events are complex responses to a number of factors, and hence their responses to warmer climates are difficult to assess. However, as the Earth warms, experts expect more frequent high temperature extremes and less frequent cold extremes, and that more precipitation will fall over shorter periods of time. This will likely increase the frequency of very heavy and extreme precipitation events, and of local flooding. Tornados and the intensity of thunderstorms and related extreme wind and hail events will also increase in some areas. It is also expected that many regions of the world will experience more frequent, prolonged, or more severe droughts due to more rapid evaporation from plants, soils, lakes, and reservoirs. Increasing atmospheric moisture could also increase the intensity and frequency of blizzards and snow storms in some colder locations, while decreasing their frequency but increasing their intensity in more temperate latitudes. In effect, climate change will load the dice with respect to the probability of occurrence of such events. There is as yet little consensus on how global warming will affect other extreme weather events such as tropical storms, cyclones and typhoons, although the potential maximum intensity of such storms is expected to increase.

E.6 Can scientists prove that recent extreme weather events are due to global warming?

Response: No. Although by definition extreme events occur very rarely, most of the recent events have likely happened before. Furthermore, because of their complexity, it is still difficult to assess the natural probability of occurrence for many of these events. However, in many respects, many of the recent events are also consistent with what is expected more frequently in the future, and could therefore already have been influenced by warmer climates. At minimum, many of these provide a good reminder of what may happen more frequently in the future.

Explanation: These extreme events may simply be the result of natural variations in climate. While floods, heat waves, a severe El Nio, and other extreme events are expected to increase as the world warms, it is difficult to attribute any particular climate or weather event definitively to global warming or any other natural or human cause. Nor is it possible to rule out the role of climate change. This is partly because data on climate extremes in many regions of the world are inadequate to draw robust conclusions about possible changes in their frequency of severity that may have occurred on a global scale. Furthermore, the link between the frequency of extreme events and global warming can only be determined through statistical analyses of long-term data because the natural climate system can produce weather and climate events that appear to be uncharacteristic of the recent climate.

Goretex: The last time I checked, there weren't too many hurricanes hitting Phoenix.

That's irrelevant. Tropical cyclones are affected by climatic changes on a global scale. Climate changes in the Pacific ocean correspond with climate changes in the Atlantic ocean.

^^^^ Look everyone! Actual information from a scientific perspective!

Lets not forget section G3 from the same article you stole your info from (oh and you should proof it too... I think "el nino" is a little more accurate than "el nio"). It disputes your "there is no greenhouse" push by detailing how most scientists pushing this idea are not specialists in the field of atmospheric sciences. Go fark yourself.

G.3 I understand there are thousands of scientists who argue that we
know too little about climate change, and that it is therefore premature to
respond. Who are these dissenters and are they credible?
Response: The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there
are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic
credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy,
oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences. Their primary argument
is that the human influence on climate is not yet apparent, and that the results of climate
modeling are exaggerated. However, most generally agree with the fundamental science
underlying the concern about climate change.

(stokes the fire for rush22... sorry everyone)

Yeah, epoch-spanning global climatology suddenly shifts over a period of a few years.

Sure.

..and, we *know* that because ... uhmm, because...

.. a Republican think-tank has spent money on "research", maybe...?

ALL HAIL THE HOMELAND! OBEY AND BE SPARED!