Simple Question About AGW

[Tokenconservative]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie

 

[Fordama]

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama

 

[Phaedrus74]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie

Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...

 

[mhaze]

Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...

Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.

The funny thing is that, after the 1953 flood, Dutch engineers specifically visited New Orleans because of the levee-system in place there!

You can imagine that the Katrina storm, and it's aftermath were followed closely over here. It still makes me sad thinking about it....

 

[kallsop]

I have seen "expert" predictions that (A)GW will cause fewer and less severe hurricanes.

With some predicting more, and some less, either will be evidence of (A)GW. QED.

 

[Loss Leader]

I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Then you will never know what you're talking about.

 

[mhaze]

The funny thing is that, after the 1953 flood, Dutch engineers specifically visited New Orleans because of the levee-system in place there!

You can imagine that the Katrina storm, and it's aftermath were followed closely over here. It still makes me sad thinking about it....

From a local perspective, I have to say that the last hundred years in New Orleans and that area is quite colorful. Current events such as the flood are only a tiny part of the story. I was often told by New Orleans residents that if a hurricane hit them, their city was a goner. They laughed about this, and it was integral part of the "don't worry about tomorrow, drink, eat and be merry today" atmosphere that made the city quite unique.

Go back some decades, you'll find troubling things. Purposeful flooding of thousands of farmers land by the state government to divert water from the New Orleans area. They were promised they would be paid in full and never got a dollar. Seems to me this was 1920s. Numerous government corruption issues. Reference Huey Long, governer, very interesting character (had a photographic memory). Current levee construction, improper materials used and not corrected, not structurally sound. The list is endless.

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

 

[mhaze]

"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama

In your view the fact that Gore's movie parades Katrina as related to man made global warming is okay, then? Before answering consider the following:

1. Nasa Climate chief Dr. Hansen was Gore's science advisor.
2. The documentary won an Oscar.
3. Hansen is a well known and respected climate scientist (at least in many circles.)

You want to focus on the contradictions in the scientific studies, the areas of known uncertainty? Sure we can do that. And your point is....?

 

[Phaedrus74]

From a local perspective, I have to say that the last hundred years in New Orleans and that area is quite colorful. Current events such as the flood are only a tiny part of the story. I was often told by New Orleans residents that if a hurricane hit them, their city was a goner. They laughed about this, and it was integral part of the "don't worry about tomorrow, drink, eat and be merry today" atmosphere that made the city quite unique.

Go back some decades, you'll find troubling things. Purposeful flooding of thousands of farmers land by the state government to divert water from the New Orleans area. They were promised they would be paid in full and never got a dollar. Seems to me this was 1920s. Numerous government corruption issues. Reference Huey Long, governer, very interesting character (had a photographic memory). Current levee construction, improper materials used and not corrected, not structurally sound. The list is endless.

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

I do hope they get the city rebuilt, it appeared to be a truly unique place, one I would hope to visit in the future.

The Dutch systems are someting we are very proud of it makes the average dutchman/dutchwoman grow 2 inches just talking about it. But they are nothing compared to the crazy plans they have lying around, artificial reefs in the North sea, widening the "Afsluitdijk" to include extensive nature preserves. Great stuff, hope they get around to building it.

Maybe my own fate doesn't worry me overly, the dykes and locks are being looked at. But consider a country like Bangladesh... I really hope we can help those people sort out their challenges...

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am not a scientist.

I don't even play one on TV.

So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.

Who knows, maybe this stuff says what the alarmist AGWists say it does. But for a lay person like me, with no particular access to the inside intricacies of those paid to arrive at the "right" conclusions, I can only rely upon how all this plays itself out on the public stage.

I take you back to 2005. This is noted as the "worst" 'cane season in "recorded" history. What does that mean? Well, it means "since we started giving hurricane's names." In 1933, there were 15 named hurricanes, in 1969, 12.

But okay, let's say 2005 was the "worst." What does that have to do with Global War...oops! I mean "Climate Change"?

We were assured during and of course after that "worst in recorded history" hurricane season (7 'canes, 5 making US landfall) that this was a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, the very next season, we all waited with bated breath to see 8, 10, 15 major hurricanes, and another 5 or 6 making landfall in the US, taking out Houston, NOLA again, Biloxi, Pensacola, the Florida Keys, Miami, Jacksonville, Savanah...marching all the way north to NYCity!

Score:

2005: 7 canes, 5 major, 5 hit the US, "responsible for" over 2000 deaths (please note that most of these were not directly attributable to weather and included people who died in auto accidents leaving the area, people who died 40 miles away of heart attacks, people who died of gunshot wounds during looting, etc.)

2006: 5 'canes, two major, none hit the US, 11 fatalities.

2007:6 'canes, 2 major, one made landfall in the US, 415 fatalities.

Now, we were assured that the 2005 season was the begining. This was shrieked at us from every "news" report and from every AGWist in the land.

Hurricanes would be getting bigger, worser, more frequent.

Has that happened?

If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?

And yet, many do.

Why?

Tokie

So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody said that the 2005 hurricane season was caused by GW. Many said that it MIGHT have been caused by GW, but that anomalous intense seasons are part of the noise in the system. What we DID say that it was a warning of what might be.

So, Tokie, your question is a bit of a;

 

[bobdroege7]

Also keep in mind that 2007 was one of 4 hurricane seasons in the Atlantic basin that had two cat 5 hurricanes make landfall.

Also had one of the fasted developing storms on record.

Mild and record setting.

 

[rockoon]

Mild and record setting.

Do you think its hard to find a record setting event? You can do that every year. Its called Cherry Picking.

 

[bobdroege7]

Do you think its hard to find a record setting event? You can do that every year. Its called Cherry Picking.

then show me records of multiple cat 5 hurricanes making landfall every year.

thanks for playing

 

[rockoon]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2484.htm

This confluence of optimal ocean and atmosphere conditions has been known to produce increased tropical storm activity in multi-decadal (approximately 20-30 year) cycles. Because of this, NOAA expects a continuation of above-normal seasons for another decade or perhaps longer. NOAA's research shows that this reoccurring cycle is the dominant climate factor that controls Atlantic hurricane activity. Any potentially weak signal associated with longer-term climate change appears to be a minor factor.

...

An average Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 through November 30, produces 10 named storms in which six become hurricanes, including two major hurricanes with winds of at least 111 mph. The most active hurricane season was in 1933 with 21 storms, followed by 1995 with 19 storms. The most hurricanes in a season was 12 in 1969, and the highest number of major hurricanes was eight in 1950.

..2007 was average.. even predictably so.

 

[rockoon]

then show me records of multiple cat 5 hurricanes making landfall every year.

thanks for playing

..the game is finding ANY record being set, and then trumpeting it as if it was significant.

You do appear to be playing that game.

 

[a_unique_person]

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

We can't prevent any problems, we have more than enough ability to cope with them. (if we are 'industrious'.)

 

[sol invictus]

I think the OP's question wasn't totally illegitimate, and it's worth responding to. In my opinion, science is simply not capable of making solid, specific predictions about climate change. There are too many mysteries, too many confounding factors, and too many examples of past predictions gone awry to believe otherwise. Scientists know that, but the public doesn't - hence this kind of question.

Scientists do know quite a lot about climate. They know what most of the important factors are that affect it. They have computer models which, while still primitive, capture a large part of the complexities.

So, while they can't say, "2008 will be the worse hurricane season on record", they can say, "the climate is changing in a way that will enhance the number and severity of storms in an average season, by roughly X".

 

[sol invictus]

Very impressive system in Holland, shows in a way, that AGW if it did occur at some future time, is not a problem. Industrious people can deal with such a challenge.

Sure.

Tell that to all the people in Bangladesh that have no resources to build dikes with and will die if there's significant flooding.